get_treasury_holdingsBitcoin held on the balance sheets of tracked public companies, in aggregate and by largest holder. Takes no arguments. Returns { as_of, total_btc, company_count, total_value_usd, top[], why, disclaimer }, where top[] lists the largest holders as { name, symbol, btc }. 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, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return fields (including 'why' and 'disclaimer'), noting it takes no arguments, and stating it is 'Information, not financial advice.' No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then detailing the return structure, and ending with a disclaimer. The empty example '{}' is the only minor weakness, but every sentence otherwise earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing essential information.
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?
With no output schema, the description fully explains the return object, including nested top[] structure. It also confirms no arguments are needed, which is the only input consideration. The tool's simplicity (zero params, read-only, idempotent) is matched by a complete and self-contained 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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for such cases is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no arguments,' which removes any ambiguity. There is no schema to clarify, so this is fully adequate.
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 returns Bitcoin held on public company balance sheets, both in aggregate and by largest holder. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_sovereign_reserves and get_etf_flows by specifying 'tracked public companies' as the resource. The return structure is explicitly defined.
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 makes the tool's context clear: use it for corporate Bitcoin treasury data from tracked public companies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource boundary is evident. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only tool.
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.