btc_tx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return contents (inputs, outputs, fees, block info), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning error behavior for malformed or unknown hashes.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the purpose is front-loaded and the return summary follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies both the action and the return shape, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on invalid or non-existent hashes.

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% and the single txhash parameter is fully documented there, including a 64-hex-char pattern. The description's "by hash" adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get detailed Bitcoin transaction information") and qualifies the lookup key as "by hash," which implicitly separates it from the address-based siblings btc_address and btc_balance. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it holds a transaction hash rather than an address. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the btc_* siblings.

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