validate_btc_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the validation logic (checksum, SegWit) and explains the meaning of a bad checksum. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or requires authentication, but the context of a validation function implies safety.

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 two sentences: the first gives a clear imperative on usage, and the second provides necessary technical details. Every word serves a purpose, 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?

Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and returns. It could be improved by describing the output format, but for a simple validation tool, the current description is sufficiently 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the validation checks performed and what information is returned (address type and network), helping the agent understand the tool's capabilities.

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 that the tool verifies a Bitcoin address, specifying the address formats it checks (Base58Check, Bech32/Bech32m) and the return information (type and network). It distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools by being specific to Bitcoin addresses.

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 explicitly tells the AI agent when to use this tool ('before sending funds or storing it') and warns not to assume validity. It does not mention when not to use it, but since there is no alternative Bitcoin address validator among siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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