generate_keypair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and excels: it explains the default redaction behavior, the security risk of AI logging, the consequence of setting include_private_key=True, and the local node requirement. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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?

Efficiently structured with purpose first, followed by SECURITY header for critical warnings, and Args section for parameter details. Every sentence provides necessary information (prerequisites, risks, parameter semantics) with no redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values) and the high-stakes nature of key generation, the description adequately covers operational constraints, security warnings, and parameter semantics. Complete for this complexity level.

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 0% (properties lack description fields), but the Args section fully compensates by detailing valid enum values for address_type (explaining P2PKH, P2SH-P2WPKH, etc.) and the security implications of include_private_key. Comprehensive coverage of both 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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('Bitcoin address'), clarifies the mechanism ('via the connected node's wallet'), and distinguishes from siblings—all of which are read-only analysis tools (analyze_*, get_*) or transaction inspection rather than wallet generation operations.

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 operational prerequisites ('Requires a local node with a wallet loaded') and constraints ('not available when using the hosted Satoshi API'), providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool for the hosted API scenario, stopping short of a perfect score.

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