Verify a Ripio deposit address

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds rich behavioral context beyond that: exact character-by-character matching, memo/tag handling, network/asset compatibility, and mistyped-copy flagging. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: core behavior, usage instruction, and negative scope. Every sentence earns its place, though 'with code' followed by 'character by character' is slightly redundant.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed to invoke correctly: exact-match behavior, memo handling, asset/network relevance, and the Ripio Trade exclusion. No critical context is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds sender-perspective semantics beyond the schema fields: pass the address as pasted from where it will actually be used, and use the asset and network as the sender names them. This meaningfully sharpens how address, asset, and network should be supplied.

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 states a concrete verification action: it checks an address and optional memo/tag character-by-character against the account's Ripio Wallet deposit addresses and flags mistyped copies. It distinguishes this from sibling get/list tools and draws a clear scope boundary with 'Ripio Trade addresses are not checked.'

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 clearly instructs when to use it: before someone sends to an address, passing the address exactly as pasted plus the asset and network the sender will use. It also gives an explicit when-not constraint for Ripio Trade addresses, though it does not name an alternative tool for that case.

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