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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the key nuance: values are node-reported or difficulty-derived depending on chain, stated per chain, plus an explicit PoS caveat for ETH. It does not cover freshness, caching, or failure modes, so it falls short of fully transparent.

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-loaded with the payload, then two clearly labeled routing clauses. Every sentence adds distinguishing information; there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must signal what comes back; it names the metrics, the per-chain sourcing, and the ETH PoS note. It stops short of specifying units, formatting, or per-chain coverage limits, but the essential shape of the response is conveyed.

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 there is no argument semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with or undermines the empty 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 specific metrics (network hashrate and difficulty) for three named chains, plus an ETH PoS caveat. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from pool-level siblings, so an agent can pick it out without inspecting schemas.

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?

Contains an explicit 'When to use' clause (mining economics, security budget, chain weight comparison) and a 'Do not use' clause routing pool-level queries to xmr_pool_status or robotbase_pool_worker_query. Both the positive and negative routing conditions are spelled out.

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