decode_wif

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context by stating 'Works offline' and 'The private key is not echoed back', and it discloses the MCP_BITCOIN_ALLOW_MNEMONIC=true requirement. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description front-loads the purpose, then gives a requirement and a short argument list. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant text. The structure is clear, though the requirement line could be slightly expanded.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, offline behavior, a required environment flag, and both parameters. It does not spell out error behavior or allowed network values, but these are not essential for a correct call. Overall it is complete enough for a small read-only tool.

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 0%, but the description's 'Args:' section compensates by explaining both parameters: 'wif' is the WIF-encoded private key, and 'network' overrides the server's network for the call. This clarifies the meaning of the default null for network, which the schema leaves implicit. The explanations are terse but add real value over property titles.

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 states a specific operation ('Show the public key and addresses') on a specific resource ('a WIF private key'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling decoders like decode_raw_transaction or decode_script. The phrase 'Works offline' adds a useful constraint. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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?

The description gives a clear context: the tool decodes a WIF private key to its public key and addresses, and it works offline. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., derive_addresses, get_address_from_pubkey) or when not to use it. The only operational guidance is the environmental prerequisite, so usage selection relies on inference.

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