bsv_explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description lists endpoint functionalities but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether operations are read-only or mutative, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response formats. While it mentions 'API health check' and parameter requirements, it fails to provide comprehensive behavioral context needed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 well-structured with categorized sections (CHAIN DATA, BLOCK DATA, etc.) and bullet points for each endpoint, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 19 endpoints, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'requires X parameter' could be streamlined). Every sentence adds value by clarifying endpoint purposes and parameter mappings, with no wasted text.

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's complexity (19 endpoints, no annotations, no output schema, and nested input schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in documenting endpoints and parameter mappings but lacks behavioral details (e.g., read/write nature, rate limits) and output information. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally cover more behavioral aspects to fully guide the agent, leaving gaps in operational context.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explicitly maps each endpoint to required parameters (e.g., 'block_by_hash: Complete block data via hash (requires blockHash parameter)'), provides optional parameters with defaults (e.g., 'days parameter, default 7'), and clarifies parameter usage across endpoints. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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 tool's purpose: 'Explore Bitcoin SV blockchain data using the WhatsOnChain API. Access multiple data types:' followed by a comprehensive categorization of endpoints (CHAIN DATA, BLOCK DATA, etc.). It specifies the verb 'explore' and resource 'Bitcoin SV blockchain data', distinguishing it from sibling tools like bsv_decodeTransaction (decodes transactions) or bsv_getPrice (gets price data).

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for exploring Bitcoin SV blockchain data via the WhatsOnChain API, with a list of specific endpoint types. It explicitly states 'Use the appropriate parameters for each endpoint type and specify 'main' or 'test' network.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., using bsv_decodeTransaction for transaction decoding instead of this tool's tx_by_hash).

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