list_utxos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists UTXOs but does not describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how the output is structured (beyond a vague 'Dictionary with list of UTXOs'). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter and return details in a structured format. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of 'Returns: Dictionary with list of UTXOs' is somewhat vague and could be more precise, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on behavioral traits, output structure, and usage context. This results in a minimal viable description with clear gaps, especially for a tool with no annotations to supplement it.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'min_confirmations' is the 'Minimum confirmations required' and 'min_amount' is the 'Minimum UTXO amount in BTC', including default values. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more context on units or constraints.

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's purpose: 'List available UTXOs for funding transactions.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('UTXOs') with a functional context ('for funding transactions'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' or 'search_op_returns', which might also involve transaction data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'for funding transactions' as a general context, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools such as 'get_transaction' for retrieving specific transaction details. This lack of explicit usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction.

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