Get Bitcoin Staking security guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context by indicating the output will include sources and explicit evidence boundaries (i.e., confidence/limitations). This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations for the response format.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits useful details about parameters, which slightly reduces its efficiency in conveying complete usage 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is incomplete: it does not mention the topic parameter, does not explain return-value semantics, and lacks usage guidance. The output schema covers the response structure, but the description's silence on parameters and usage leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the 'topic' parameter at all. The enum values (audit_status, timelock_construction, etc.) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no explanation of how to use the parameter or what each topic returns, making it difficult for the agent to select the correct parameter value.

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 ('Return') and resource ('sourced security diligence'), and adds the qualifier 'explicit evidence boundaries,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_snapshot or get_protocol_status. It is not a tautology and clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it could be more explicit about Bitcoin staking.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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