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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'validate' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, the description doesn't specify what validation entails (checksum verification, format validation, network compatibility), what happens with invalid addresses, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple validation tool and gets straight to the point 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?

For a validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes successful validation, what format the result takes, or what happens with invalid addresses. Given the technical nature of Bitcoin address validation, more context would be helpful.

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 single parameter 'address' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('validate') and resource ('Bitcoin address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also validate addresses in different contexts or for different cryptocurrencies.

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. Given the sibling tools include 'decode_invoice', 'decode_tx', and 'get_transaction', there's no indication whether address validation is a prerequisite for those operations or when validation should be performed independently.

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