btc_tx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and specifies return fields (inputs, outputs, fees, block info). However, it does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or network requirements. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not extra rich.

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, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a list of return contents. Every word is useful; there is zero redundancy or filler.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter, and return fields. It does not discuss error cases or rate limits, but given the simplicity of the tool, these are not critical gaps. This is slightly above the minimum viable description.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (txhash) with a clear description. The tool description's mention of 'by hash' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate further.

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 'Get detailed Bitcoin transaction information by hash' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like btc_address and btc_balance by focusing on transaction hashes rather than addresses or balances.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you have a Bitcoin transaction hash and need details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool naming makes the context clear enough. A 4 is appropriate because it gives clear actionable guidance without needing to mention every sibling.

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