get_btc_block_stats

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 that the tool is an RPC call to bitcoind requiring BITCOIN_RPC_URL, and mentions issue references for context. No contradictions with annotations. Beyond annotations, it specifies the RPC method name and data source, which is helpful.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the read-only nature and method name. Every sentence adds value: lists output fields, compares with alternatives, and states use cases. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description lists all key return fields (fee percentiles, tx count, block size, total fees). It also explains why these are useful (fee-market anomalies, baseline). For a read-only data tool, this is fairly complete, though it omits potential error conditions or edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'hashOrHeight', which already includes detailed constraints and explanation. The description does not add additional meaning beyond restating the parameter's role implicitly. With high schema coverage, baseline of 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 returns bitcoind getblockstats output including fee distribution percentiles, tx count, block size, and total fees. It explicitly distinguishes itself from Esplora by noting Esplora lacks fee percentiles. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'btc_block_stats' align perfectly with the purpose.

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 provides usage context: spotting fee-market anomalies and baselines for mempool_anomaly. It notes a key exclusion (Esplora does not provide fee percentiles) and a prerequisite (BITCOIN_RPC_URL configured). It does not compare to all sibling tools but the specificity of the output is distinctive.

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