get_address_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only, free, and requiring no API key, and it discloses the returned state fields. It omits error behavior for unactivated or malformed addresses and any rate-limit or caching notes, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler. The cost/access profile is front-loaded and the actionable timing advice follows, so an agent gets the key facts immediately.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the safety profile and the shape of the return values, which is what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around behavior for unactivated addresses, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so both the address pattern and the network enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (on-chain energy and bandwidth for an address) and enumerates the exact sub-fields returned (limits, used, available, activated). This clearly separates it from siblings like estimate_contract_call and calculate_savings, which compute or simulate rather than read current state.

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?

"Call it before buying to see whether the address already has enough energy for its next transfer" gives an explicit when-to-use trigger tied to a decision point. It does not, however, name a specific alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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