validate_address

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

The description discloses that it returns a checksum version, but does not explain what happens with invalid addresses (e.g., returns false, throws an error) or what exactly the checksum format is. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, and these details are critical for a validation tool.

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 of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Validate', and includes the resource and output without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple and the description covers the primary purpose, but it lacks essential details about invalid address handling and return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify error behavior and checksum specifics. It also does not explicitly note that this is only for Ethereum, relying on the name to convey that.

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 100% description coverage with 'The address to validate'. The description adds Ethereum context and the checksum output, but does not provide parameter-specific details like format requirements, checksum standard (EIP-55), or examples. This is an acceptable baseline given the schema covers the parameter meaning.

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 'Validate an Ethereum address and return its checksum version', specifying the verb (validate), the resource (Ethereum address), and the output (checksum version). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling validators for other chains like xrp_validate_address and ton_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 clear context by explicitly mentioning 'Ethereum address', indicating it is for Ethereum validation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as other chain-specific validators, even though the sibling list includes many such tools.

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