get_btc_tx_history

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by detailing output fields (txid, sats, fee, block info, RBF flag) and the Esplora page limit, which are not in 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the most critical information (read-only, what it returns, ordering). Every sentence adds value; no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers all return fields and behavioral aspects (RBF flag, pagination cap). It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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% with both parameters already described. The description adds useful context (e.g., 'one Esplora page' for limit, 'newest-first' ordering) that goes beyond the schema descriptions, enhancing understanding.

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?

Description clearly states specific verb+resource: 'Bitcoin transaction history for a single address (newest-first)' and details the data fields. Distinguishes from siblings like get_btc_account_balance (balance only) and get_transaction_history (likely multi-address).

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?

Explicitly marks as READ-ONLY, explains the limit and cap behavior, and notes pagination limitation ('pagination beyond is a follow-up'). While not detailing alternatives, the description provides clear context for proper use.

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