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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'retrieve'), returns data in string format, and explains the concept of block height with examples. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which would be beneficial for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, followed by return format, parameter explanation, and use cases. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value without redundancy.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, use cases, and behavioral context, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'height' parameter's meaning ('position in the blockchain'), providing examples (height 0 as Genesis block, height 875000), and clarifying its role in identifying blocks. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare 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 the specific action ('retrieve the unique hash identifier'), resource ('Bitcoin block'), and mechanism ('by specifying its height'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_summary_of_latest_block' or 'get_10_latest_blocks_informations' by focusing on hash retrieval via height rather than block information or latest blocks.

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 ('When you need to identify a specific block by its position, to verify block integrity, or to look up historical blocks'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools from the sibling list, such as 'get_summary_of_latest_block' for block details instead of hash.

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