get_v1_btc_derivatives_reorg_stream

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cadence (10min), data type (orphans/forks), and a risk indicator. However, it lacks details on connection method (polling vs. push), data format, or whether it requires authentication. The term 'stream' with a cadence is somewhat ambiguous.

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?

Three sentences plus price/category, no fluff, front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters or output schema, the description covers purpose, cadence, use cases, and a condition. It lacks output format details and clarification on 'stream' vs. polling, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand what it returns.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4 per rules. The description adds no param info, which is fine since there are none.

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 clearly states it's a stream of Bitcoin chain-tip orphans and valid forks with a 10-min cadence. It also lists specific use cases (exchange confirmation policy, cross-chain bridge safety, finality auditors) and a risk threshold (branch_length >= 2). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_v1_btc_derivatives_blocks_range or get_v1_btc_derivatives_coinbase_messages.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided, but the description does not include when-not-to-use or direct comparisons to sibling tools. The agent can infer usage from the purpose, but explicit guidance is missing.

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