bitcoin_get_transaction_history

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 behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether unconfirmed transactions are included, the ordering of results, pagination behavior, or any other operational details. For a read operation, this is minimal but lacks useful transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose without 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 output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (e.g., a list of transactions with details). It does not, nor does it mention pagination or result scoping. Given the simple parameter set and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for a user who needs to understand the response format or usage constraints.

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 100%, with each parameter (address, limit, offset) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 gets transaction history for a Bitcoin address, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling Bitcoin tools like bitcoin_get_balance and bitcoin_validate_address, and the chain is explicit in both name and description.

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 market_get_wallet_transactions or chain-specific history tools. The description simply states what it does without any context about suitable use cases or exclusions.

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