bitcoin_non_hd_wallet_balances

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

The description discloses that the response includes spot prices, metadata, total balance, available balance, and transaction count. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'non-HD' nor any potential limitations or prerequisites beyond the required parameter.

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 clear but slightly verbose with five sentences. It could be more streamlined without losing essential 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?

Lacking an output schema, the description provides some return field details but does not fully specify the structure or clarify key concepts like 'non-HD', leaving some uncertainty 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description largely reiterates the schema's information (required vs optional, enum values). It adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 fetches Bitcoin balance for a non-HD address, using specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'bitcoin_hd_wallet_balances' by specifying 'non-HD'.

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 implies usage for non-HD addresses by naming the tool accordingly, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-to-use guidance for the sibling 'bitcoin_hd_wallet_balances'.

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