get_network_signalBitcoin network hashrate level and trend. Takes no arguments. Returns { as_of, hashrate_eh (exahashes per second), pct_30d, pct_90d, why, disclaimer }. Example: {}. Information, not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure (as_of, hashrate_eh, pct_30d, pct_90d, why, disclaimer) and the 'Information, not financial advice' note, which gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool yields.
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 core purpose, and efficiently includes the return schema and a disclaimer without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return fields and even gives an example. The annotations handle safety, and the sibling context makes the niche clear. No critical information is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' aligning with the empty input schema. There is nothing further to explain, so the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools is appropriate.
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 provides 'Bitcoin network hashrate level and trend,' a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools covering different signals (ETF flows, hiring, treasury holdings, etc.). The title reinforces the exact resource.
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 context is clear: use this tool when needing Bitcoin network hashrate data. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, the sibling tools are topically distinct, making the intended usage obvious. No exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools target distinct data sources: ETF flows, hiring, network hashrate, sovereign reserves, treasury holdings, and a cross-signal scan. get_daily_brew and scan_signals both summarize signals but differ in format (digest vs. ranked list), creating mild potential for confusion. Overall, descriptions clearly differentiate purposes.
Six of seven tools follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern (e.g., get_etf_flows, get_treasury_holdings). scan_signals breaks the pattern with a different verb, and get_daily_brew uses a non-resource name, but the deviation is minor and the naming remains intuitive.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Bitcoin signals server. Each tool covers a distinct signal category without excess or redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
The tool surface covers a broad range of leading Bitcoin indicators (network, institutional flows, corporate and sovereign holdings, hiring, and a composite scan). Potential minor gaps exist (e.g., sentiment or derivatives data), but the core signal set appears reasonably complete for the stated purpose.