bitcoin_transactions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return values (timestamps, amounts, transaction IDs) and pagination behavior. It implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or any side effects.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, followed by parameter descriptions and return value summary. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values adequately. It addresses pagination and key parameter details. Lacks mention of error handling or edge cases, but overall sufficient for a straightforward query tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description restates some schema info (required address, optional pageSize/pageNumber with defaults) and adds context about output, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'fetch the full transaction history of a Bitcoin wallet.' However, with many sibling transaction tools (e.g., transactions_for_address, multichain_transactions), the description does not differentiate this tool from similar ones.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it lists required and optional parameters, it does not explain in what contexts this tool is preferred over siblings like transactions_for_address.

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