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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that balance and tx history are provided, but gives no details on input format, supported address types (whether both are accepted or must be specified), rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise, a single phrase, which is efficient. However, it may be under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it lacks essential context. Still, there is no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description should at least clarify the input format and expected result. It mentions balance and tx history but does not specify how to pass the address or what the output structure is. With no annotations and zero schema description coverage, this is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 schema has one parameter 'q' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'q' should contain (e.g., a BTC or ETH address, possibly a combined query). This is a significant gap; the parameter's meaning is entirely unexplained.

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's function: checking balance and transaction history for BTC and ETH addresses. It names specific resources (BTC/ETH) and a specific action (balance & tx history). However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tools btcaddr and ethaddr, which likely serve the same purpose for individual currencies, so the agent might not know when to choose this over those.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the dedicated btcaddr or ethaddr tools. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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