check_address_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the classification categories and implies a read-only operation, but does not explain the return format, what happens for invalid/unsupported addresses, or what 'known entity' specifically means. This is a minimal disclosure but not misleading.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or unrelated details.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on the output schema or return values, and does not address edge cases like unsupported networks or address formats. However, the schema covers parameters well, and the tool's narrow scope keeps it from being severely deficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'address' and 'network' already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the operation, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Determine if') and clearly identifies the resource (address type) with three distinct outcomes (contract, EOA, known entity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'is_contract' (which only checks the contract status) and 'validate_address' (which checks format).

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 implies the usage context: use this tool when you need to classify an address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among similar tools. A clearer 'when to use this vs. is_contract' would have earned a 5.

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