Get your agent's Sui wallet address, same as the first line of t2 fund.
Get the agent's Sui wallet address. Same value as the first line of t2 fund.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "t2000_address"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v10.14.1v10.13.4v9.12.0v9.8.0v3.3.0v2.12.0v2.7.3v2.7.1v1.33.2v1.32.0v1.29.3v1.28.0v1.25.3v1.25.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or other traits. Adequate for a trivial tool but lacks depth.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides a useful cross-reference.
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?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the return format explicitly, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info but is unnecessary. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly conveys the tool's function.
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 retrieves the agent's Sui wallet address. It distinguishes from siblings by being a simple address fetch, though referencing 't2 fund' output adds slight ambiguity.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The tool's simplicity makes usage obvious, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned beyond an implicit comparison to 't2 fund'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.