Get XGR core addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool retrieves data via an RPC method, without disclosing side effects, error conditions, required permissions, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, the minimal description is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and effective.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description should explain what 'core protocol addresses' are and what the return structure looks like. It currently only states the action, leaving potential ambiguity about the output format. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). According to rules, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed as there are no parameters.

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 the tool retrieves XGR core protocol addresses and names the specific RPC method (xgr_getCoreAddrs). It is distinct from sibling tools, which mainly deal with transactions, sessions, or other specific data.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to retrieve...', providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the tool is unique enough that exclusion guidance might not be necessary.

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