ton_validate_address

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only validation operation but does not state whether it returns a boolean, whether it checks on-chain validity or only syntactic format, or whether any network calls are involved. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 key action and resource. There is no redundancy or extraneous text; every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately minimal for such a focused tool.

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?

This is a simple tool with one fully documented parameter, but the description does not specify the return value or behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without a clear picture of what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, normalized address, or error). This incompleteness is notable for an otherwise trivial tool.

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 already describes the single 'address' parameter as 'TON address to validate', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional constraints like accepted address formats are mentioned.

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 identifies the action ('Validate') and the target ('a TON address format'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from other ecosystem tools by specifying TON, but does not explicitly contrast with other chain-specific validators like xrp_validate_address or the generic validate_address.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for TON-only validation or suggest using other tools for balance checks or transaction history. There are no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions.

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