bitcoin_validate_address

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states 'Validate a Bitcoin address format'. It does not specify whether the validation is purely syntactic (regex) or includes checksum verification, what kinds of addresses are supported (legacy, SegWit, etc.), or whether it returns a boolean or throws an error. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is immediately clear and front-loaded, effectively using its brevity to convey the core purpose.

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 is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and the schema covers the input fully. However, the absence of any mention of return values or validation strictness leaves a gap for the agent, especially since there is no output schema. The description is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single 'address' parameter already described as 'Bitcoin address to validate'. The description adds the word 'format', which hints at the scope of validation, but it does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Validate a Bitcoin address format' uses a specific verb (validate) and clearly identifies the resource (Bitcoin address). It distinguishes itself from sibling validators like xrp_validate_address and ton_validate_address through the explicit 'Bitcoin' qualifier.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever a Bitcoin address needs format validation), but it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is preferred over generic validate_address or other chain-specific validators. This meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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