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 returns a chronological list in string format with specific fields (txid, date/time, amount), accepts any Bitcoin address format, and indicates this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' and no mention of mutations). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or pagination.

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, starting with the core purpose, followed by return format details, address format acceptance, and use cases. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure flows logically from general to specific.

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 (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough: it explains the purpose, return format, parameter semantics, and use cases. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values, and it adequately covers the tool's functionality for an AI agent.

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 for its single parameter 'address', but the description compensates by explaining that it 'accepts any Bitcoin address format (Legacy, SegWit, Bech32)', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type definition. It does not specify format examples or validation rules, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('complete transaction history of a Bitcoin address'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_address_overview' or 'get_info_about_address' by focusing on full chronological transaction lists rather than summaries or general info.

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 ('audit an address's activity, track payment history, verify specific transactions, or investigate suspicious activity') and mentions alternatives ('get_bitcoin_transaction_infos' or 'get_transaction_input_output' for further investigation), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or differentiate from all siblings like 'get_address_overview'.

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