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?
The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by specifying the output fields (as_of, hashrate_eh, pct_30d, pct_90d, why, disclaimer) and includes a disclaimer ('Information, not financial advice'). This discloses behavioral aspects like the data returned and its nature, without contradicting the annotations.
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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence efficiently covers arguments, return fields, and a disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'Example: {}' is a compact way to illustrate usage.
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's simplicity (no arguments, no output schema), the description provides a comprehensive overview by listing all returned fields and including a caution. It lacks detailed explanations of 'why' or 'disclaimer', but for a read-only informational endpoint, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments', which matches the empty input schema. While it adds no parameter-specific meaning, the zero-parameter case is handled clearly and accurately.
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 resource and function. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_etf_flows or get_sovereign_reserves by topic, making it unambiguous which tool to use for hashrate data.
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 explains that the tool 'takes no arguments' and returns a specific structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Usage is implied from the title and topic, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is limited to context.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct Bitcoin intelligence domain—ETF flows, hiring, hashrate, sovereign reserves, treasury holdings, daily digest, and cross-signal scan—with no functional overlap. Even similar-sounding holdings tools are clearly separated by nation-state vs. corporate focus.
Six of seven tools follow a consistent get_<domain> pattern, making them predictable and discoverable. The single outlier, scan_signals, breaks the pattern slightly but remains readable and within the same verb_noun style.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a Bitcoin signals server—broad enough to cover multiple indicator categories without bloat. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose.
The tool set covers the stated domain of leading non-price indicators comprehensively, including individual domain-specific queries and an aggregated, filterable scan. No obvious missing operations or dead-ends; the daily brew provides a digest while scan_signals offers detailed rankings.