get_info_about_address

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's read-only nature by describing data retrieval and accepted address formats. It does not mention rate limits or permissions, but the behavior is well-covered for a query 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 concise and front-loaded, with every sentence providing necessary context. It lists return metrics efficiently and ends with a use case, leaving no wasted words.

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 description includes all essential details: purpose, return metrics, address format acceptance, and use cases. With an output schema assumed to exist, it is complete for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema by specifying that any Bitcoin address format is accepted (Legacy, SegWit, Bech32). However, it does not detail constraints or format requirements, which is acceptable given the single parameter.

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 specifies the action ('get comprehensive information') and resource ('Bitcoin address'), listing detailed metrics. While clear, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_address_overview' or 'get_transactions_of_address', though the comprehensiveness is implied.

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 a clear use case ('When you need a complete snapshot of an address's financial activity and current state'), guiding appropriate usage. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is sufficient.

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