Diamond Bitcoin Intelligence

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation trait: it is a paid endpoint (300 sats or US$0.25 USDC per call), which affects how an agent should invoke it. It still omits failure modes and rate/quotas.

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. What it screens comes first and the cost constraint second, so the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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-input, paid, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies enough: scope of screening and price/payment context. It could say more about what the result contains, but return values are largely inferable from the listed signal categories.

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 address format, the l402 token/preimage flow, and the pay_with enum are all already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb (Screens) plus resource (one Bitcoin address) and an enumerated set of risk signals (OFAC, ransomware lists, ownership clusters, sweeper bots, laundering patterns). This clearly separates it from market/geopolitics siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling, watch_bitcoin_address, which also targets 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?

Usage is implied: call this to risk-screen a single address. There is no explicit when-to-use vs watch_bitcoin_address (one-shot screening vs ongoing monitoring), no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. The pricing note hints that this is a paid per-call lookup but does not guide tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant operational context: the tool is paywalled at 20 sats or US$0.02 USDC per call, and pay_with='lightning' returns a BOLT11 invoice plus token instead of an x402 payment request. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., what happens on an expired invoice or unpaid call), so it is not a full 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 dense sentences with the returned data front-loaded and pricing/payment mechanics second. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the title. It could be marginally tighter but is well within an appropriate size for this tool.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema endpoint, the description covers what comes back, that it is node-scoped, and the full payment flow. The main missing element is routing guidance relative to the overlapping sibling tools, which is a usage concern more than a completeness one.

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 l402 and pay_with are already documented in the schema, and the enum on pay_with is structured. The description reinforces the payment/price context that motivates these parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states — the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 enumerates the specific data returned (fee rates across 1 block–1 day, mempool, 24h whale transactions, AML cases, implied BTC/USD), which is far more informative than the title alone. It reads as a node-scoped market snapshot, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like bitcoin_address_risk or whale_geopolitics_report, which overlap on the whale/AML dimension.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools, and no prerequisites beyond the payment mechanics. The 'from this node' qualifier hints at scope, but an agent gets no routing guidance for choosing between this pulse endpoint and the address-risk or geopolitics reports.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is "Free", i.e. no payment or x402 settlement is required to call it, which matters for a tool that advertises paid siblings.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, and the most decision-relevant fact ("Free.") is front-loaded before the content list. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list prices, accepted payment methods, and terms. It stops short of saying the result is a list of tools with their names/endpoints, but it is adequate for a zero-parameter read 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% and no parameters exist to document.

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?

Specific verb ("Lists") plus a precise resource ("Diamond's paid Bitcoin intelligence tools") and even names the fields returned: prices in sats and USD, payment methods, terms. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are the paid intelligence tools themselves rather than a catalog of them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before invoking one of the paid siblings, but the description never says "use this first" or names an alternative or any exclusion. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a per-call price (1000 sats / US$1 USDC), a 30-day lifetime, the delivery channels, and that feed links are returned. It stops short of explaining the payment handshake order (invoice then l402 token re-call) or what happens to an existing watch after 30 days.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and closing with the commercial constraint; every clause carries information (duration, trigger, channels, return value, cost) with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value (feed links), and the schema supplies the payment-mode parameters. The only remaining gap is the sequencing of the paid flow (call, receive invoice, pay, retry with l402), which an agent must infer.

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%, so every parameter including the l402 token format and the x402/lightning enum is already documented in the schema; the description adds only the price context, which is not parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb and resource (alerts/watch on a Bitcoin address) plus scope (30 days, every confirmed transaction paying to or spending from it), which is unmistakably distinct from the risk-scoring sibling bitcoin_address_risk. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 conveys what triggers the alert and for how long, so the use case is implied, but it never says when to choose this over siblings or when not to use it, and no prerequisite conditions are stated beyond the price.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in structured fields: the cost per call (1000 sats or US$0.8 USDC) and that the output is JSON, which matters for an agent deciding whether to spend.

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 tight sentences: the substantive content listing comes first and the commercial terms second, with no filler. Front-loading is correct and every clause carries information, though the report-content enumeration is dense rather than elegant.

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 read-only report tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned and what it costs. The date range and payment-token mechanics live in the schema, and the price lives in the description, so the two together are sufficient for a correct call.

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%, and each parameter (date, l402, pay_with) is documented in the schema itself, including the 90-day window and the '<token>:<preimage>' format. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource (a one-day report) and enumerates its contents: whale flows vs world news, lagged correlations, laundering patterns, headlines, analyst brief. This is far more concrete than a generic 'report' tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like bitcoin_market_pulse, but the enumerated content makes its scope inferable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative for adjacent needs (e.g., bitcoin_market_pulse for price data). The only contextual clue is the pricing line, which implies a paid, deliberate call rather than routine use.

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