create_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'unsigned' but doesn't disclose other behaviors such as whether it accepts inputs from other tools, what assumptions it makes about the network, or what happens if invalid addresses are provided. The output schema exists but is not shown.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, but too sparse. It could include a brief note on the output or usage context without becoming verbose.

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 complex domain with 19 sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how this fits into the transaction lifecycle (e.g., need to add inputs, then sign/serialize), nor does it mention the return format or potential errors.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline of 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?

The description 'Create an unsigned Bitcoin transaction' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (unsigned Bitcoin transaction), and distinguishes it from siblings like sign_transaction and serialize_transaction.

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 or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool likely requires inputs (UTXOs) to be specified elsewhere, or that the resulting unsigned transaction should be signed or serialized later.

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