Bitcoin-MCP-Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns 'detailed metrics in string format across four categories' (Transaction Status, Economics & Flow, Technical Structure, Block Information), specifies the input requirement ('txid is a unique 64-character hexadecimal identifier'), and implies it's a read-only operation (no mention of mutation). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, preventing a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, lists the return categories in a bulleted format for clarity, explains the txid parameter, and ends with use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 complexity (detailed transaction analysis), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral output (four categories of metrics), and usage guidelines, providing all necessary context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly without relying on structured fields.

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 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'txid is a unique 64-character hexadecimal identifier for each Bitcoin transaction,' clarifying the parameter's format and purpose. This fully compensates for the schema gap, making the parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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: 'get comprehensive information about a specific Bitcoin transaction using its transaction ID (txid).' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('Bitcoin transaction'), and scope ('comprehensive information'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_transaction_input_output' (which focuses on specific aspects) or 'get_transactions_of_address' (which lists multiple transactions).

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 usage context: 'Use cases: When you need to verify a payment, check transaction status, analyze fees paid, or investigate transaction details.' It implicitly suggests when to use this tool (for detailed single-transaction analysis) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like 'get_transaction_input_output' or state when not to use it, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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