CoinBucha

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only says 'machine-readable signal digest' without disclosing any behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, return structure, or prerequisites.

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?

Single sentence is concise but could be more structured to improve readability. It includes key information without waste.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return value. 'Machine-readable signal digest' is vague; lacks details on format or content. Given it's a daily compilation, more context would help.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by indicating it provides a daily digest, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 it provides a 'machine-readable signal digest' called the 'CoinBucha Daily Brew', indicating it retrieves a daily compilation of signals. It distinguishes from siblings like get_hiring_signal which target specific signals.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify contexts where the daily brew is preferred over individual signal tools or scan_signals.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the data returned (net flows, timeframes). It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, update frequency, or factualness, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys essential information (what, timeframes, context) with no unnecessary words.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description minimally suffices but lacks detail on the output structure (e.g., units, format, per-ETF totals). It is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool but could be more informative.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adequately implies no input is required.

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 specifies the tool provides 'Spot Bitcoin ETF net flows' with timeframes (latest day, trailing 5/30-day) and context 'institutional demand'. It clearly states the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for Bitcoin ETF flow data but lacks usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions data comes from 'live ATS boards' but does not disclose behavior such as data freshness, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. Key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides minimal but sufficient context. However, it lacks details on return format, time range of deltas, and any additional behavior that would help the agent use the tool effectively.

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 single parameter 'company' is fully described in the schema as a case-insensitive filter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 indicates the tool provides hiring velocity data for Bitcoin/crypto infrastructure, including open roles and 30/90-day deltas. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_daily_brew (news) and get_network_signal (network metrics) by focusing on hiring metrics.

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 implies usage for tracking hiring trends in crypto infrastructure, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like scan_signals. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (hashrate level, trends) but does not mention any behavioral aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the key information: what the tool provides (hashrate level, trends) and the context (miner conviction/security). No unnecessary words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and return values. It lacks details on data format or units, but for a simple no-param tool, it is mostly complete.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the output, which is the entire purpose of the tool. It provides context beyond the empty schema.

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 network hashrate level and 30/90-day trend, which precisely identifies the resource and functionality. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hiring_signal or get_sovereign_reserves.

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 implies usage for Bitcoin network security analysis but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_signals). No conditions or exclusions are provided.

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

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 mentions ranking and filtering but lacks details on whether it's read-only, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens with empty results. It does not describe output format.

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, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and filtering options are clearly stated.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main function and filtering. However, it omits behavioral traits like output format or pagination. Slightly incomplete but sufficient for a simple lookup.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only country parameter has a description). The description adds meaning for tier by stating '1 = largest holders', which compensates for the missing schema description. For country, it echoes the schema description but adds no new insight.

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 'Sovereign Bitcoin holdings, ranked' which specifies the verb (list/get), resource (sovereign Bitcoin holdings), and scope (ranked). It differentiates from siblings as none are related to sovereign reserves.

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 explicitly mentions filtering by country or tier, including the meaning of tier (1 = largest holders). While it doesn't state when not to use or alternatives, siblings are distinct, so confusion is unlikely.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is returned but omits any behavioral traits such as update frequency, caching, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a data retrieval tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., list or number, time range). It mentions 'total BTC held by public companies + top holders' but does not specify whether it returns a single value, a table, or a sorted list. This ambiguity limits completeness for a simple tool.

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 input schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is assigned since no parameter documentation is needed beyond the schema. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable.

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 corporate Bitcoin treasury holdings, specifying 'total BTC held by public companies + top holders.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_etf_flows, get_network_signal) which cover different data domains.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to use or avoid it, nor does it reference any siblings for contrast, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the domain.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral context. It mentions 'ranked' but not the ranking criteria, and lacks any mention of idempotency, pagination, or data freshness. For a read-like tool, this is insufficient for an AI agent to predict side effects or expectations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists filter options. No redundant information, perfectly sized.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., 'returns an array of signal objects with fields X, Y, Z') or sample output. It also lacks any security, error, or limitation details. For a tool that is supposed to be the 'money tool,' this is under-specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67% (missing description for 'direction' but covered by enum). The description restates filter dimensions concisely but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema examples (e.g., does not explain how 'strength' is computed or what 'signal_types' entries are valid).

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 a 'ranked composite feed of Bitcoin signals' and allows filtering by three dimensions. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual signal types (e.g., get_hiring_signal, get_network_signal), indicating this is an aggregator.

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 implies usage for a broad, multi-signal view via the phrase 'composite feed,' but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or provide any exclusions (e.g., 'use this for a general overview, use get_hiring_signal for in-depth hiring data').

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