mtrkr_inspect_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively details the tool's behavior: for EOAs vs contracts, it describes returned data like balance, bytecode size, proxy detection, deployer, owner, verification, token standard detection, registry checks, and risk assessment. This fully informs the agent of what to expect.

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 relatively long but every sentence adds value by detailing specific capabilities. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor conciseness improvements could be made, but it effectively communicates without being verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (many features like proxy detection, token detection, risk assessment) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major aspects the agent needs to decide when and how to use it, leaving little ambiguity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'address' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Address (0x...) or .mega name'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond that; it only implies via usage that the parameter specifies which address to inspect. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool inspects any address on MegaETH, determining EOA vs contract, balance, transaction count, and more. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the primary inspection tool, avoiding external block explorers.

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 explicitly tells the AI to use this tool instead of external block explorers or contract-analysis services, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention specific alternatives, though sibling tools offer some context.

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