bitcoin_get_network_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get current Bitcoin network information,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. Additional context such as output format or potential latency is absent, leaving the agent with limited understanding of the tool's behavior beyond a basic read.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes a useful specific ('including fee rates'). Every word earns its place with no 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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about return values. It mentions fee rates but is vague about what other 'network information' is included. For a zero-parameter getter, this may be sufficient for selection, but it leaves the return structure underspecified.

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, so the input schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get current Bitcoin network information including fee rates.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bitcoin network information'), and the mention of 'fee rates' adds concrete detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other chains (e.g., ton_get_network_info, litecoin_get_network_info).

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 implication is clear: use this tool when you need Bitcoin network information, especially fee rates. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_chain_info or bitcoin_get_balance. The context is implied rather than stated.

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