get_btc_block_stats

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is read-only and requires RPC configuration, and it lists specific data fields beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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 concise: it front-loads 'READ-ONLY', lists outputs, states RPC requirement, provides use case, and references issues. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data fields, usage context, and prerequisites. Minor omissions like error handling or valid block assumptions are acceptable given the clarity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the hashOrHeight parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter information beyond the schema, so 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 specifies that this tool provides bitcoind getblockstats output including fee distribution percentiles, tx count, block size, and total fees. It distinguishes itself from Esplora by noting that Esplora lacks fee percentiles, and it clearly targets fee-market anomaly detection and baselines for mempool_anomaly.

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 states it is RPC-only and requires BITCOIN_RPC_URL configured, and that it is used for fee percentiles not available via Esplora. It provides context for when to use this tool (spotting fee anomalies) but does not explicitly name an alternative tool for simpler queries like block size/tx count.

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