btc_abuse_check

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 does mention the output type (scam reports with categories and descriptions), which adds context, but it does not disclose potential error cases, absence of reports, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and directly states the return value. Perfectly concise and structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the tool's purpose and return content, which is largely complete. However, it does not mention behavior when no reports are found or any other edge cases, so it is slightly incomplete.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter 'address' with a description. The description merely repeats 'Bitcoin address' without adding additional semantics, so it does not enhance the schema's parameter explanations. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 checks a Bitcoin address for abuse reports on ChainAbuse, and specifies it returns scam reports with categories and descriptions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like btc_balance and btc_tx, which likely handle balances and 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 context: use this when you need to check if a Bitcoin address is associated with known scam reports on ChainAbuse. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of full guidelines.

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