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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication, or side effects, so it provides no value beyond 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 a single sentence and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the nested parentheses and run-on structure make it difficult to parse. It is concise but not well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 domain-specific tool with no output schema, the description partially explains the return values (three dates) but leaves the output format unclear and does not clarify the input parameter. It is minimally adequate given the complexity and missing structured documentation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter price_usd. The description mentions 'a Bitcoin price' but does not specify units (USD), format, or constraints, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. The schema title 'Price Usd' offers the only clue.

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 states a specific calculation: given a Bitcoin price, it returns the date when the power-law trend reaches that price, plus two band-based dates. The verb 'reaches' and resource 'power-law trend' are clear, though the phrasing is dense and parenthetical. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_trend_on_date, which takes a date rather than a price.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the computation, not the context or conditions that select this tool over explain_power_law_model or get_power_law_status.

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