transfer_btc

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the build/sign/broadcast pipeline, the wallet-unlock prerequisite, and a genuine hazard (spending ordinal UTXOs may destroy inscriptions). It omits confirmation/irreversibility behavior and the default fee resolution, which matters for an irreversible broadcast.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then the safety-critical default — good ordering with no redundant sentences. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' upsell is promotional and marginally dilutes a task-critical 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 must cover mechanism, prerequisites, and hazards — which it does, including the ordinal-spending danger. Residual gaps are the return value (presumably a txid) and the fee-default behavior, minor for a transfer tool whose parameters are fully documented.

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 amount, recipient, feeRate, and includeOrdinals are already fully documented in the schema. The description's note about cardinal UTXOs being 'safe to spend - no inscriptions' largely restates the schema's own warning, and it says nothing about feeRate or amount units. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Transfer BTC to a recipient address') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('Builds, signs, and broadcasts a Bitcoin transaction'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like transfer_stx, transfer_token, transfer_rune and sbtc_transfer without needing 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 a clear precondition ('Requires an unlocked wallet with BTC balance') and explains the default policy of only spending cardinal UTXOs, plus when to override with includeOrdinals=true ('advanced users only'). It never names an alternative tool (e.g. sbtc_transfer or a PSBT flow) for cases where this tool is wrong, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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