get_address_utxos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the critical performance characteristic ('scans full UTXO set, may take minutes'). However, it omits other behavioral traits such as confirming it is read-only, idempotent, or whether it requires a fully indexed node to function.

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 efficiently structured with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed immediately by the critical performance caveat. The Args section is concise and directly maps to the schema. No redundant or wasted language.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on the operational context (scanning behavior) and input requirements. It would benefit from explicitly stating the read-only nature (absent annotations) or describing the return value structure, but it covers the essential prerequisites and warnings.

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%, but the description compensates adequately by defining the single parameter as a 'Bitcoin address to scan.' This adds semantic context (Bitcoin-specific, purpose of scanning) beyond the schema's bare 'Address' title and string type.

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 'Scan[s] the UTXO set for all unspent outputs belonging to an address,' using specific verbs and resources. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_address_balance (aggregate amount) and get_address_history (transactions) by specifying retrieval of individual unspent outputs.

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 provides an implicit usage cue through the performance warning ('may take minutes'), suggesting it is resource-intensive. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer alternatives like get_address_balance (for simple totals) versus this tool (for detailed UTXO lists).

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