get_utxos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'Needs a backend' prerequisite, which is a useful behavioral note, but it does not disclose other traits like pagination, error conditions, or network override implications.

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 is exceptionally concise: a single-purpose line plus a clean parameter list. No wasted words, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values don't need description. The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and a prerequisite. It could mention potential edge cases or limitations, but it is sufficient for a straightforward read-only list operation.

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?

The description explicitly explains all three parameters in the Args section, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies the meaning of address, min_confirmations, and network beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('an address's unspent outputs'), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the function is distinct from tools like get_balance or get_tx_history.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Needs a backend'), which is useful context, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it. It gives no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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