search_crypto

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('Passive, public-source collection') and keyless access. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens for invalid addresses.

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 sentences, no redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input summary, and output contents (balance, transactions, total received). It is mostly complete but could mention potential errors.

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 50%, and the description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The 'address' parameter is not described, and 'json_output' is only described in schema. The description should clarify valid address formats or input constraints.

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 it validates a Bitcoin or Ethereum address and returns a keyless on-chain summary. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that search for other data types.

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?

It provides an explicit authorization requirement ('Authorized use only'), which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. Given the siblings are distinctly different, this is adequate.

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