address_safety

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is read-only (on-chain reads), lists all returned fields, and discloses payment requirement (402 response, server needs funded wallet). No destructive behavior mentioned; it's a safe operation.

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?

Description is somewhat long but each sentence adds value: purpose, returned data, payment model. Front-loaded with main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but no fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (contract status, balances, activity, contract details, risk band). Also covers payment context and chain limitation. Complete for a safety check tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (chain default 'base', address any 0x). Description adds context about address being EOA or contract and purpose, but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides a structural safety profile for any Base address (EOA or contract) before sending funds, approving, or calling. It specifically lists returned data (contract-vs-EOA, balances, tx-count, contract details, risk band) and distinguishes from siblings like token_safety by covering general addresses.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before sending funds, approving, or calling a contract. Mentions on-chain read-only nature and paid service (402 if unpaid). Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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