btc_verify_message

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: automatic format detection, the 65-byte vs witness-serialized distinction, and the address requirement for BIP-322. It stops short of stating what an invalid signature yields or whether any state is touched, which matters given no output schema.

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?

Core purpose and format rules are front-loaded in a tight sequence of sentences with no redundancy. The closing promotional tip about `earning_opportunities` is irrelevant to verification and does not earn its place.

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 verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the return contract (boolean vs recovered address, failure behavior). 'Recover or confirm the signer' hints at it but leaves the shape ambiguous, so an agent cannot predict the response.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the 'hex or base64' encoding note and does not mention the expectedSigner alias, so it contributes little beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Verify a Bitcoin message signature') and immediately narrows scope to BIP-137/BIP-322, which distinguishes it from the Stacks/SIP-018 and Schnorr verification siblings. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete selection rules: BIP-137 for legacy addresses, BIP-322 required for bc1q/bc1p, with auto-detection so callers usually don't need to choose. It does not, however, route the agent away from sibling verifiers (stacks_verify_message, schnorr_verify_digest, sip018_verify) when the message is non-Bitcoin.

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