utxo_utils

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: per-action credit costs, plus the note that credits are indicative and the actual spend is returned in response headers. It does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by tight bulleted actions, then supporting tables. The credit tables add length, but given the absence of annotations that cost detail earns its place. Structure is scannable with no filler prose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally sketch return shapes — particularly for decode-raw-transaction, whose usefulness depends on what decoded fields come back. It also says nothing about pagination or response envelope. The operational details it does provide are solid, making this adequate but incomplete for an output-heavy utility.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by pairing each blockchain with its supported networks and by restating which parameters each action requires (address, rawTransactionHex, and the convert action's lack of a blockchain parameter). The enum pairings are genuinely new information not encoded in the flat schema.

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 the resource (UTXO utilities) and enumerates three specific actions — validate-address, decode-raw-transaction, convert-bitcoin-cash-address — so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling chain-family tools (evm_utils, xrp_utils), leaving sibling differentiation to inference from the name.

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?

Each action gets a one-line conditional, including the exception that convert-bitcoin-cash-address is Bitcoin Cash only and takes network + address rather than a blockchain parameter. The blockchain→networks matrix further tells the agent which combinations are legal. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over evm_utils/xrp_utils, so it stops short of a 5.

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