detect_coinjoin

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 fails to mention if the analysis is heuristic-based, requires memory, or has limitations (e.g., false positives). The description is too brief about internal behavior.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral details that would be helpful given no output schema or annotations. The agent may not know what the output looks like or what constitutes a detection.

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% (tx_hash described), but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description. The description repeats 'Bitcoin transaction' which is already implied by the parameter name. Baseline 3 applies since coverage is high.

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 uses specific verbs ('Detect') and identifies the resource ('a Bitcoin transaction') and specific patterns ('CoinJoin, mixing, and tumbling patterns'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'batch_screening' or 'trace_transaction' by focusing on privacy-enhancing patterns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trace_transaction' or 'check_address_risk'. The description does not mention any context such as prerequisites, transaction types, or when not to use it.

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