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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a real operational trait beyond the schema: highly active addresses such as exchange cold wallets may return a degraded hint due to indexing load, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of covering auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination/return formatting details.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly partitioned into labeled sections (when-to-use, caveat). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the return-field list is delivered compactly.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it covers purpose, accepted inputs, example intents, and a degradation caveat. Minor residual gaps (auth/rate behavior, whether the degraded response still contains partial data) keep it just under full completeness.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by enumerating the accepted address formats (P2PKH 1…, P2SH 3…, bech32 bc1q…, bech32m bc1p…), letting an agent validate input types before invoking.

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 (query) and resource (Bitcoin address) and enumerates exactly what is returned: confirmed/unconfirmed balance, UTXO count/total, transaction count, and the last 10 transactions. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like btc_tx_lookup and btc_block_summary, which operate on different entities.

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 【何时用】 section gives concrete user-intent triggers ('how much BTC does this address have / has it received a payment / activity level'), which is strong contextual guidance. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for transaction-level inspection use btc_tx_lookup).

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