btc_tx

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a per-call cost ($0.002 USDC) and p99 latency (3000ms), and enumerates the result contents including mempool vs confirmed status and RBF signal. It stops short of stating read-only/safety semantics explicitly, but a lookup verb plus billed read is unambiguous.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then result fields, then use cases, then cost/latency in a compact block with no filler. The return-field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

Covers purpose, when to use, return contents, pricing and latency for a single-parameter tool with no output schema. Missing only an explicit note on error behavior for unknown txids or mempool-only transactions, which is minor given the field list already implies those states.

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 schema already documents txid as a 64-char hex string. The description only restates 'by txid', adding no format, validation, or edge-case guidance (e.g. what happens if the txid is unknown). 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 (Lookup) plus resource (Bitcoin transaction by txid) and lists the exact data returned. The 'Bitcoin' qualifier cleanly separates it from evm_tx, sui_tx, iota_tx and tron siblings in the tool list.

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 two concrete triggers: confirming a payment arrived, and diagnosing a stuck transaction. It does not name the adjacent alternatives (e.g. btc_address for address-level balance), so an agent must still infer which sibling to pick, but the usage context is explicit.

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