get_btc_chain_tips

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing that the tool returns available: false with a setup hint when RPC is not configured. It also confirms the read-only nature and idempotency. No contradictions with annotations; in fact, the description enriches the behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise yet comprehensive. It front-loads the read-only nature and includes key output details, use case, RPC requirement, and fallback behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the references to issues #248/#233 v2 are minor but acceptable.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (branchlen, status with possible values) and covers the edge case of missing RPC configuration. It also explains why this data is unique (cannot be obtained from Esplora). For a zero-parameter tool, this is exceptionally 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 tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, so this score 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 identifies the tool as returning bitcoind's getchaintips output, listing forks with branchlen and status. It explicitly states its purpose for fork/deep-reorg detection and distinguishes itself from Esplora indexers, which cannot expose this data. The verb 'get' and resource 'BTC chain tips' are clear, and it differentiates from sibling tools like get_ltc_chain_tips.

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 states that this is the primitive for fork/deep-reorg detection and notes that Esplora cannot provide this data. It also specifies the requirement for BITCOIN_RPC_URL and mentions the fallback behavior when RPC is not configured. While it could mention alternatives like get_btc_block_tip, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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