get_btc_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: multi-address nature, per-address error handling resulting in 'errored' entries, and output shape mirroring get_btc_balance. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the operation and limits, explaining error behavior, and referencing sibling output for output shape. No redundant or extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by referencing get_btc_balance's output shape. The single parameter is fully described in the schema. Given the tool's simplicity and the coverage from schema and annotations, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptive text for the parameter and its items. The description reinforces the per-address error handling already in the schema, and adds context about output similarity to get_btc_balance, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is a READ-ONLY multi-address Bitcoin balance fetch for 1-20 addresses, with a specific verb (fetch), resource (Bitcoin balances), and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_btc_balance by specifying multi-address capability and per-address error handling.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_btc_balance or get_btc_account_balance. It mentions error handling but does not provide conditions like 'use when needing multiple addresses' or 'for single address use get_btc_balance'. The purpose is clear but the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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