rescan_btc_account

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds rich context: retries transient errors, bounded parallel requests, pure indexer-side, and details the three-state return signal (needsExtend, unverifiedChains). No contradiction.

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 a single dense paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, usage, state signals, and limitations without wasted words. Structurally front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given complexity (rescan, indexer, state signals), annotations, and thorough input schema, the description is complete. It explains the return behavior (three-state signal), rate limits, and retry logic, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 a detailed parameter description in the input schema. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 explicitly states the verb 'refresh' and the resource 'cached on-chain txCount for every paired Bitcoin address under one Ledger account', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pair_ledger_btc (initial pairing) and get_btc_account_balance (reading cache).

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 specifies when to use ('after user has received funds' or 'indexer was stale at original scan time'), clarifies no Ledger/USB interaction, and explains the three-state extend signal to guide next actions (re-run vs. re-pair), providing explicit alternatives.

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