pair_ledger_btc

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

Describes read-only nature (no prompt on device), caching of addresses, and that get_ledger_status reports them. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent; description adds valuable behavioral context beyond 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 detailed but well-organized with clear sections (purpose, requirements, technical details, caveats). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and requirements. While slightly lengthy, every sentence provides essential information.

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 the complexity of pairing a hardware wallet, no output schema, and two parameters, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, caching, address enumeration, and scope (mainnet-only). It fully informs the agent about what to expect and how to use the 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description still adds meaning: explains accountIndex enumerates all four address types and walks both receive/change chains, and explains gapLimit with BIP44 context and default values. 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 clearly states it pairs a directly-connected Ledger device for Bitcoin signing, enumerating all four address types. It uses a specific verb ('Pair'), identifies the resource ('Ledger device for Bitcoin signing'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pair_ledger_live or pair_ledger_solana.

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 lists requirements (USB plugged, unlocked, Bitcoin app open), explains when not to use (Ledger Live WalletConnect relay doesn't expose bip122 accounts), and notes it's mainnet-only in phase 1. Provides clear context for appropriate invocation.

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