btc_timestamp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the privacy model ('only a salted hash leaves our server'), the asynchronous anchoring behavior ('within hours'), cost ($0.005 USDC per call), and p99 latency (5000ms). It also explains the return artifact (standard .ots proof) and that it is verifiable with the open-source ots tool.

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?

A single dense but front-loaded paragraph: the core action and inputs come first, with cost and latency correctly deferred to the end. It is slightly packed with operational facts, but every clause (privacy, cost, latency, companion tool) earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it does (a base64 .ots proof, plus the block/proof via the verify tool). Cost, latency, privacy, and the verification workflow are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 all three parameters individually documented, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description restates the accepted input types (text, SHA-256 hash, URL) but adds no syntax, format, or precedence details beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Timestamp anything on Bitcoin with OpenTimestamps') and enumerates accepted inputs (text, SHA-256 hash, URL) plus the output artifact (.ots proof, base64). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling btc_timestamp_verify by describing that tool's role, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 use cases (contracts, AI outputs, datasets, invoices, web evidence) and names the downstream companion tool (btc-timestamp-verify) for the verification step. It does not, however, state when to prefer a different notarization sibling such as iota_notarize, so exclusions are absent.

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