Get the latest total BTC held by institutions, broken down by segment.
Segments: public_companies, etf_funds, governments, private_companies,
defi_other, exchanges_custodians.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, making the safe read-only nature clear. The description adds the segment breakdown and names the segments, which is useful context, but it does not disclose the return format, units, or whether the data updates frequently. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds some but not rich behavioral context.
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 long, front-loaded with the main action ('Get the latest total BTC...'), and the second sentence lists the segments compactly. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core content: what data is returned (total BTC by segment) and the exact segment categories. It does not specify units (e.g., BTC vs. USD) or a typical response shape, but given the simplicity of the tool and strong annotations, it is largely complete. Slight gap on units prevents a 5.
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, and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description's list of segments adds meaning beyond the schema, even though no parameter explanations are needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it by providing useful domain context.
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 retrieves 'the latest total BTC held by institutions, broken down by segment' and lists the specific segments. This gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'orbuc_btc_holdings_segments', which could plausibly serve the same purpose, so it loses a point for sibling differentiation.
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 usage is implied by the description: use this to get the latest total institutional BTC holdings segmented by category. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'orbuc_btc_holdings_daily' or 'orbuc_btc_holdings_segments', nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The BTC tools focus on holdings data with different temporal granularities (current, daily, weekly) and segment breakdowns, while the stablecoin tools cover market cap, supply data, chain distribution, and health checks. There is no functional overlap between tools, making selection straightforward.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear prefix structure: 'orbuc_btc_' for Bitcoin-related tools and 'orbuc_stablecoin_' for stablecoin-related tools. The naming convention is uniform throughout, using descriptive nouns and adjectives to differentiate functions (e.g., 'health', 'current', 'daily', 'segments').
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for its dual-domain purpose covering BTC holdings and stablecoin data. The count is appropriate, providing comprehensive coverage without bloat, and each tool serves a distinct, necessary function in the data retrieval and monitoring workflow.
The tool set offers complete coverage for both BTC holdings and stablecoin data domains. For BTC, it includes health checks, current holdings, daily/weekly time series, and segment breakdowns. For stablecoins, it covers health, aggregate data, chain distribution, historical and latest coin-specific data, and market cap tracking, leaving no obvious gaps for typical agent workflows.