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

Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return composition: the 0-100 scale, the 48 weighted signal families, the six named zones, 7/30-day deltas, tier scores and a 30-day history.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the core output (current score) first and then enumerates the secondary fields. Dense but every clause conveys real content; the parenthetical signal list is the only mildly heavy element.

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 has to describe the return value, and it does so thoroughly (score, zone, deltas, tier scores, history). The only gap is routing guidance relative to the sibling cycle/market tools.

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 100% with a single enum parameter (BTC default or ETH), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's mention of 'Bitcoin or Ethereum' only restates that, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the enum.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (current SatoshiMacro Model score for BTC/ETH) and defines what the score actually is (0-100 confluence of 48 weighted signals). The scope and the asset coverage make it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_cycle_indicators and get_market_snapshot.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Current ... score' and the default-BTC parameter, but the description never states when to reach for this instead of get_cycle_indicators or get_market_snapshot. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer routing from the names alone.

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