btc_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ($0.003 USDC per call), latency (p99 3000ms), the scope restriction to Bitcoin mainnet, and the supported address types (bc1/SegWit/Taproot, 1, 3). It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or error behavior for an invalid/non-mainnet address, which keeps this from a 5.

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 purpose and output inventory are front-loaded, followed by practical metadata (cost, latency). It reads as a dense run-on sentence, but nearly every clause (output fields, network scope, price, latency) carries real decision-relevant 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate — and it does by enumerating the returned fields in detail plus cost, latency, and network scope. Remaining gaps (failure modes for bad addresses, whether results are paginated beyond the limit param) are minor for a simple two-parameter lookup.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the limit range (0–25) and default. The description mentions 'the latest transactions' and the address types but adds no syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Bitcoin address lookup') and enumerates the exact outputs (confirmed/pending balance in BTC and USD, total received/sent, tx count, latest transactions with net amount, confirmations, fee). That resource-and-output framing cleanly separates it from siblings like btc_tx (a single transaction), btc_fees, btc_watch (monitoring) and evm_balance (different chain).

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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'Use to check a payment, a treasury or a counterparty wallet.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative or exclusion (e.g., use btc_watch instead for ongoing monitoring), so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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