Get Wallet UTXOs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds return format ({ utxos, count }) and default limit behavior, plus optional address semantics. This is helpful context beyond annotations, though pagination and ordering are not covered.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 optional parameters, the description thoroughly covers purpose, arguments, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description repeats the same parameter details from the schema without adding new information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) for an address' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling wallet tools like wallet_balance and wallet_status by focusing on UTXOs, and notes optional address behavior.

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 gives clear context (get UTXOs for an address, optional address) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like wallet_balance and wallet_status are not referenced, so an agent might not know when to prefer this over them.

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