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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the value is an expected rate derived from difficulty × 2^32 / 600 s read from block headers rather than a measured hashrate, the epoch basis, the disclaimer, and the per-answer data_contract { source, as_of, status, corrections_url, license }. That is exactly the epistemic caveat an agent needs before repeating the number.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is and how the value is derived before the return shape, then ends with scope and legal caveats. The enumerated return fields are long but earn their place given there is no output schema.

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 carries the return contract and does so fully: field list with units (hashrate_eh in exahashes per second), basis, difficulty provenance URL, why, and disclaimer, plus the always-present data_contract. An agent can answer without calling blindly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description corroborates this with 'Takes no arguments' and the empty example call, leaving nothing ambiguous about invocation.

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?

States a specific resource (Bitcoin network hashrate level and trend) plus the verb-like framing of what it derives from (difficulty, 2016-block epoch). The derivation formula and the 'expected rate, not a measured one' qualifier make it unmistakable against siblings like get_hiring_signal or get_etf_flows.

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?

Explicitly says 'Takes no arguments' and routes bulk/history/backfill use to the CSVs and datapackage.json, which is clear when-not guidance. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from sibling signal tools such as get_signal_history or scan_signals, so the routing within the server is left inferential.

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