get_btc_utxos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not state permissions, whether unconfirmed UTXOs are included by default, pagination behavior, or what the response contains.

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 sentence is front-loaded and efficient. However, the closing promotional tip about `earning_opportunities` is unrelated to calling this tool and does not earn its place in the definition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain return behavior and safety. It also does not clarify how this differs from the many other balance/UTXO-related siblings. The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves key behavioral context unexplained.

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 both `address` and `confirmedOnly` fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 and resource: 'List all UTXOs (Unspent Transaction Outputs) for a Bitcoin address.' It is specific enough for an agent to know the core operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as get_cardinal_utxos, get_ordinal_utxos, or get_btc_balance.

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?

It offers broad contexts ('debugging, transparency, and understanding transaction inputs') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like get_btc_balance or get_btc_address_txs. There are no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over a sibling.

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