bitcoin_get_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing whether the balance is confirmed/unconfirmed, the unit of the returned value, or any network assumptions (mainnet/testnet). The minimal description offers little beyond the operation itself.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the essential information. It is appropriately concise with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description leaves ambiguity about the return format and units. The tool is simple, but the lack of behavioral disclosure (e.g., what the balance represents, whether it is spendable) makes it incomplete for an agent to rely on.

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 schema has 100% coverage with the parameter 'address' described as 'Bitcoin address to check'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully descriptive, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get balance for a Bitcoin address' clearly states the action (get), resource (balance), and target (Bitcoin address). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bitcoin_get_transaction_history and bitcoin_get_network_info by specifying exactly what is being retrieved.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other chain balance tools (e.g., aptos_get_balance, solana_get_balance) or Bitcoin-specific validation tools. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., address validation) or exclusions.

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