get_btc_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully states that the response includes total balance (including unconfirmed) and confirmed balance, but it does not explicitly discuss side-effect-free reads, authentication, rate limits, or error behavior; 'get' implies read-only but does not formally declare it.

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 core description is front-loaded and efficient: two sentences state purpose and return values. The appended earning_opportunities tip is short but extraneous for invoking this tool, keeping it just below a perfect conciseness score.

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 balance lookup with one optional parameter, the description plus schema provide enough to call it correctly. It states the returned balance components, and the schema handles address formatting and defaulting; only minor operational context such as errors or auth is absent.

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 optional address parameter is fully documented in the schema, including mainnet/testnet prefixes and the wallet-default behavior. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get the BTC balance for a Bitcoin address. It also says the return includes total balance with unconfirmed and confirmed balance, making the purpose unambiguous. Although it does not name a sibling, the Bitcoin-address scope distinguishes it from STX/sBTC balance tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_wallet_info, get_btc_utxos, get_btc_address_txs, sbtc_get_balance, or get_token_balance. The tip about earning_opportunities is promotional and does not help select among balance tools.

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