derive_addresses_from_mnemonic

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior of deriving multiple addresses using HD paths, but does not mention return format, security implications (e.g., handling of sensitive mnemonic), or that this is a read-only operation. The HD path concept is already partially present in the schema's path parameter description, so the description adds limited new behavioral context.

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 main action. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, with no filler or redundant 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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema fully documents parameters, but without an output schema, the description does not state what is returned (e.g., an array of addresses). It also does not explicitly compare to the singular 'derive_address_from_mnemonic' sibling, leaving room for ambiguity about when to use which. This is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including defaults and ranges. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('derive'), a resource ('addresses from a mnemonic'), and a method ('using HD wallet derivation paths'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'derive_address_from_mnemonic' by explicitly saying 'multiple addresses', making the purpose 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?

While there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, the description clearly implies its intended use case of deriving multiple addresses from a mnemonic. The phrase 'multiple addresses' provides context that naturally differentiates it from the singular sibling, but no alternatives are explicitly mentioned.

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