Bitcoin-MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 'detailed metrics in string format' with specific metrics listed, and specifies 'Accepted Bitcoin address format : base58 or hash160.' However, it lacks information on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the data is real-time/historical, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured and concise, with three distinct parts: purpose statement, return format details, and usage guidelines. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, return metrics, input format, and usage context. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them further. However, it could benefit from mentioning any limitations or dependencies, slightly reducing completeness.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by specifying 'Accepted Bitcoin address format : base58 or hash160,' which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's generic string type. This is valuable context, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases or validation rules.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('get a simplified overview') and resources ('Bitcoin address'), focusing on 'balance and cumulative transaction totals'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_info_about_address' and 'get_transactions_of_address' by emphasizing a 'quick financial summary without granular details', making the distinction explicit.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use cases: When you need a quick financial summary without granular details.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives that might offer more detailed information, such as 'get_transactions_of_address' for transaction-level data.

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