btc_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers well: cursor round-trip semantics, first-call behavior, returned fields, per-call cost, and p99 latency. It omits failure modes, rate limits, and any auth requirements, which keeps it 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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler: purpose and return shape first, usage next, cost/latency last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the entire burden, and it does: it names the returned fields, explains the streaming/cursor model, and quantifies cost and latency. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 67% (address and cursor documented, limit has only a default). The description adds real meaning for cursor beyond the schema's one-liner by explaining the first-call/next-call handoff. The limit parameter remains unexplained in both places, so it is not a full 5.

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 (watch), resource (Bitcoin address), and an unusual scope qualifier (loop, only new transactions since last call). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like btc_address, btc_tx, and wallet_watch, which do not do incremental polling.

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 (deposit detection, treasury/whale watching) that tell the agent when this tool fits. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., versus btc_address for a one-off balance check), so it falls short of a 5.

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