Bitcoin Power Law (btclaw.io)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, giving the agent a complete safety and determinism profile. The description adds that the output is static background content (formula, fitting, bands, limits, paper), which is useful context, but it does not disclose return format, length, or any other behavioral trait beyond what the annotations cover. A 3 is appropriate given the lower bar when annotations are present.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the topic and then lists the covered subtopics. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the name or annotations.

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?

The description enumerates the explanatory content an agent can expect, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. Nothing critical is missing for such a simple, parameterless explain tool; it could be marginally improved by noting the response format (e.g., that it returns prose), but the content coverage is otherwise 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate for a parameterless explanatory tool. Baseline 4 applies when there are no parameters.

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 names a specific resource (the Bitcoin power-law model) and enumerates exactly what the explanation covers: formula, fitting method, bands, limits, and paper. This clearly distinguishes it from the computational siblings (get_power_law_status, get_trend_on_date, when_will_bitcoin_reach), which return current values or predictions rather than background.

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 the tool is for retrieving explanatory background, so an agent can infer it should be used when conceptual understanding is needed rather than a calculated result. However, it never explicitly states when to use it versus the sibling tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is therefore implied but not guided.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by spelling out what is returned (price, trend value, deviation, zone, bands, fit, next halving), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not, however, state data freshness or caching.

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 leads with the core question and then lists the returned fields; nothing is padded, though the trailing enumeration makes it denser than a plain statement of purpose.

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 burden of describing the response and does so field-by-field. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool; only formatting details (units, zone labels, freshness) are left unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a no-argument, snapshot-style call and adds no misleading parameter expectations.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('get ... status') plus an explicit enumeration of the payload (live price, trend value, deviation, zone, bands, fit, next halving). The phrase 'right now' implicitly separates it from get_trend_on_date, but no sibling is named outright, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

'Where Bitcoin is against its power-law trend right now' implies the use case (current snapshot rather than a historical or forecast query), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of get_trend_on_date or when_will_bitcoin_reach as alternatives.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that requests may be past or future dates and gives the valid range, but says nothing about how the 'fair' value and band are computed or whether they extrapolate beyond historical data.

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?

Two short sentences, output described first and the parameter constraint second, with no filler. Slightly better structure would put the format/range note before enumerating return components, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (value and band) and the legal input range. Only a brief note on band meaning or data freshness would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has only a generic 'Date' title, so the description carries the load: it specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format, UTC timezone, and the exact accepted bounds 2010-07-18 to 2100-12-31. This is genuinely necessary information not present in the 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: retrieving the power-law trend value plus lower/upper band for a given date. That is distinguishable from siblings like explain_power_law_model and when_will_bitcoin_reach, though the description never names those alternatives to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling tools (e.g. when_will_bitcoin_reach for target-price questions). Usage is only implied by the word 'trend' and the accepted date range.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful model context — that the upper band is a 3x trend treated as a historical ceiling recent peaks stayed below, and that the lower bound is 0.4x — but it does not disclose model assumptions, what happens if the target is already exceeded, or the confidence/limitations of these projections.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, but the nested parentheticals ('upper band, 3x trend: a historical ceiling that recent peaks stayed well below') make it hard to parse on first read. The core answer type is not front-loaded; the two date outputs are interleaved with model commentary.

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 does the right thing by naming the two dates returned and the bands that produce them, which gives the agent enough to interpret the response. It still leaves gaps on return format and edge-case behavior (target already passed, extreme targets), which matters for a predictive financial 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for price_usd, and it does not: it only says 'a Bitcoin price' with no unit clarification beyond the field name, no range constraints, and no guidance on behavior when the target is below the current price. It largely restates the parameter name rather than adding semantics.

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 does convey the specific outputs: the date the power-law trend reaches the given price, an earliest date from the 3x upper band, and the date after which the 0.4x lower band stays above it. That is a concrete, distinct function, but it never names or contrasts the siblings (explain_power_law_model, get_power_law_status, get_trend_on_date), and the phrasing is a run-on that reads more like a result listing than a verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or assumptions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_trend_on_date for a specific date or get_power_law_status for the current position. The agent must infer entirely from the name when this tool is appropriate.

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