liquid_list_unspents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the fields returned, which is useful, but doesn't mention any behavioral aspects such as sorting, filtering, or that it only lists unspent outputs (though implied by 'unspent'). Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return fields. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It's complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). According to the rubric, a 4 is the baseline for no parameters because the description doesn't need to explain anything further.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('wallet unspent transaction outputs'), and enumerates the exact returned fields (txid, vout, asset id, value, confirmation height). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like liquid_list_transactions or liquid_get_balance.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, the description makes it obvious this is the tool for UTXO information. The context from sibling names (e.g., liquid_list_transactions, liquid_get_balance) reinforces this, providing clear implied usage without exclusions.

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