koios_address_outputs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'including spent' outputs, which differentiates it from typical UTxO endpoints. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, output size limits, or any side effects (though this is a GET-like operation). The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer most behavioral details from the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is highly concise with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core function in 8 words. Structure is clean and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema or annotations, yet the description only states the basic function without explaining the return format, pagination expectations, or how this endpoint differs from similar address-related siblings. Given the large sibling list, this lack of differentiation may cause selection confusion. However, the schema covers parameters, so the description's brevity is partially acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain parameter relationships or edge cases.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'transaction outputs' and scope 'given addresses', and the parenthetical 'including spent' adds important scope distinction. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like koios_address_utxos, which would not include spent outputs. Purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like koios_address_utxos or koios_address_txs. The phrase 'including spent' implies a use case for retrieving both spent and unspent outputs, but there is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions. This is implied usage at best.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.