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, lists specific data points (e.g., balance, transaction counts), and mentions it accepts any Bitcoin address format. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication needs, which are important for a read operation 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, lists return details in a bulleted format for readability, specifies parameter semantics, and ends with usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (a read operation with 1 parameter and an output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the parameter. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values extensively. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or performance notes.

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: 'Accepts any Bitcoin address format (Legacy, SegWit, Bech32),' clarifying the 'address' parameter's format and compatibility. This goes beyond the schema's basic type information, providing practical guidance for users.

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 Bitcoin address including balance, transaction activity, and spending patterns.' It specifies the resource (Bitcoin address) and verb (get comprehensive information), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_address_overview' or 'get_transactions_of_address,' which appear related.

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 a complete snapshot of an address's financial activity and current state.' This gives a specific scenario for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'get_address_overview' or 'get_transactions_of_address,' which might offer different scopes of information.

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