address_deltas_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions pagination and filtering by block height, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens for nonexistent addresses. It adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core functionality and adds usage guidance efficiently.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not describe the return format or structure of the deltas. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about what data it will receive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects 'pagination' to cursor and page_size, and 'filtering by block height' to start_height and end_height, but does not explain each parameter individually (e.g., how cursor works, default page_size). The address parameter is obvious from context.

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 'Get transaction deltas (inputs and outputs) for a specific Bitcoin address with pagination.' It identifies the specific resource (transaction deltas for an address) and verb (get), distinguishing it from sibling tools like address_balance_get or address_get.

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 includes 'Use this to analyze the transaction history of an address with filtering by block height,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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