Bitcoin MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('decode') but doesn't disclose traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), performance characteristics (e.g., speed, computational cost), error handling, or output format (no output schema exists). This leaves the agent guessing about critical operational aspects.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words—'Decode a Bitcoin transaction' directly conveys the core function. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'decode' entails (e.g., returns structured data vs. plain text), potential errors (e.g., invalid hex), or integration with siblings (e.g., 'get_transaction' might provide the hex). For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, with the parameter 'rawHex' well-documented as 'Transaction hex'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format details (e.g., hex string requirements), examples, or validation rules. However, with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles the parameter documentation.

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 verb ('decode') and resource ('a Bitcoin transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transaction' (which likely retrieves transaction data) and 'validate_address' (which validates addresses rather than decoding transactions). However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the transaction are decoded (e.g., inputs, outputs, scripts), which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing raw transaction hex), contrast with 'get_transaction' (which might fetch from a blockchain), or indicate use cases (e.g., debugging, analysis). The agent must infer usage from the name and parameter alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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