get_utxo_set_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical performance characteristics (1-2 minute duration, variance by node type). It does not explicitly state idempotency or safety, though 'Get' implies read-only behavior. The performance disclosure adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 total. First sentence front-loads purpose and return values; second sentence provides critical performance context. Zero redundancy or filler content.

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 (covering return values) and empty input schema, the description successfully compensates for missing annotations by warning about the slow operation speed. It could improve by explicitly stating this scans the entire global UTXO set to contrast with address-specific siblings.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'UTXO set statistics' and enumerates exact outputs (total UTXOs, total supply, disk size). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like check_utxo (singular) or get_address_utxos (address-scoped).

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?

Provides implicit usage guidance through the performance warning ('slow operation, 1-2 minutes'), hinting not to use for latency-sensitive operations. However, it lacks explicit comparison to siblings like get_supply_info or check_utxo to clarify when to prefer this comprehensive scan over lighter alternatives.

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