get_btc_chain_tips

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns `available: false` with a setup hint when RPC is not configured, and references issue numbers. No contradiction with 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?

The description is fairly concise and front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY — bitcoind getchaintips output'. It includes technical details, usage context, and a note about configuration. Every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters or output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value, unique value proposition, prerequisites, and error handling. It references issue numbers for additional context.

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 no parameters (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter info since there are none. Baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 it is a READ-ONLY operation that returns the bitcoind getchaintips output, listing every fork with branchlen and status. It emphasizes its unique value for fork/deep-reorg detection, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (fork/depth-reorg detection) and mentions that Esplora indexers cannot expose this. It also states prerequisites (requires BITCOIN_RPC_URL configured) and describes the return behavior when not configured. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it compared to other BTC tools.

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