get_btc_multisig_balance

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 valuable behavioral details: walks both chains, uses gap limit, queries Esplora, returns aggregate + per-address breakdown, no device touch, P2WSH limitation. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful. First sentence states core purpose. Second details operational behavior. Third notes limitations. No fluff, well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Covers chains, gap limit, indexer, aggregate breakdown, and P2WSH limitation. Lacks explicit mention of return format (but aggregate + per-address is sufficient) and prerequisites (wallet must be registered). Adequate for a balanced read-only tool.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description enriches by explaining gap limit default (20), BIP-44 standard, cap of 100, and that walletName matches register_btc_multisig_wallet's name. Adds value beyond schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('read', 'walks', 'queries', 'returns') and clearly identifies the resource (registered multi-sig wallet balance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_btc_balance' by specifying multi-sig and watch-only nature, and mentions P2WSH support and taproot future.

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 states when to use (watch-only, no device touch) and provides technical context (BIP-32, BIP-44 gap limit, Esplora). It implies it's for registered wallets and P2WSH only, but does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use.

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