derive_address_from_mnemonic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only restates the core operation and does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the operation is local (no network call), that mnemonics are sensitive and should not be logged, or what the return value looks like. This is minimal transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sparse. It fails to specify the address format or blockchain network, the expected return type, whether the mnemonic is validated, or any security caveats. Given its ambiguous position among many chain-specific tools, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 schema descriptions already fully document all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the term 'HD path' but doesn't explain how accountIndex and addressIndex correspond to it, so it adds marginal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action (derive), the input (mnemonic phrase), and the output (an address). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'derive_addresses_from_mnemonic' by focusing on a single address, and from 'import_wallet_from_mnemonic' by not implying wallet import.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over related tools like 'derive_addresses_from_mnemonic' or 'import_wallet_from_mnemonic'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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