solana_get_my_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the private key is read from the environment, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits important details like whether the operation is purely local, what happens if the private key is missing, or any error conditions. For a simple no-parameter tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is concise with no redundant or unnecessary words, which is ideal for a simple tool. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and where the private key comes from. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting the return value format (e.g., a public key string) or the requirement for a properly set environment variable, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward operation.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly avoids explaining any input parameters since there are none. The mention of 'private key in environment' clarifies the implicit source, which is not a parameter but a contextual detail, and does not need further elaboration.

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 (Get), the resource (Solana public address), and the source (private key in environment). It is specific to Solana and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like solana_get_balance or get_address_from_private_key by emphasizing 'my' and the environment-based private key.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., having a private key set in the environment), or comparisons with similar tools such as get_address_from_private_key. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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