BTC Intel

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing that only the latest item of each of two Brief types is returned and that results carry headlines, dates and links. It does not discuss recency window, empty-state behavior, or whether historical briefs are retrievable, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource scope first and the returned fields last; no filler. The parenthetical gloss 'the daily read' is the only slightly expendable 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 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by listing headlines, dates and links plus the two Brief types and their 'latest only' scope. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether this call answers its question, though retrieval limits and history availability are unstated.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The schema is closed (additionalProperties false) and consistent with the stated no-filter behavior.

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 the two specific resources returned (the latest public daily Brief and the latest public Weekly Brief) and enumerates the fields (headlines, dates, links). It is clearly distinct from score or plan-rules siblings, though the verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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 and no routing versus the siblings (notably get_market_read, which sounds adjacent in purpose). The word 'public' hints at an access scope but the description never states when an agent should call this instead of another read tool.

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 a safe read (readOnlyHint=true) with no open-world access, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the three-month data lag, the automatic fallback to the latest delayed day, and the refusal rule for out-of-range dates. It does not describe the response shape, but that is minor for a read tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the score is and its range before the default and the refusal rule. The default-value clause duplicates the schema description slightly, but the repetition is cheap and reinforces the most likely agent question.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scale, staleness, default, and error conditions — enough to call it correctly. Only the explicit pointer to the live-score sibling is missing.

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 100%, so the YYYY-MM-DD format and optionality are already documented. The description nonetheless adds value by restating the default and, more importantly, disclosing the validation boundary beyond which a date is refused — information the schema does not carry.

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 (BTC Intel Score), its scale (0 to 100), and its scope (delayed, three months behind the live record, as the public site shows it). This implicitly separates it from get_live_score, though it never names that sibling outright.

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?

It states the default behavior clearly ('Without a date: the latest delayed day') and gives an explicit exclusion ('A date after the Delayed date is refused'). What it omits is direct routing to get_live_score for current data, so an agent must infer the alternative.

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?

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing cost ($0.25 per call, billed in bitcoin over Lightning), the one-call-per-payment constraint, and the credential handshake (invoice + macaroon, then macaroon:preimage). Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so this payment and auth detail is genuinely additive. It stops short of covering failure modes, macaroon expiry, or what an unpaid second call returns.

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-loads the return value, then pricing, then the call sequence, so the most useful information comes first. Three dense sentences with minor redundancy between "$0.25 a call" and "one call per payment" that could be merged.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description carries the needed load: it names the returned fields, the price, and the full payment flow. Remaining gaps (semantics of 'level', error behavior on invalid macaroon, data freshness) are modest for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the schema already documents the "<macaroon>:<preimage>" format and that it follows the first call's invoice, so the baseline applies. The description adds a little context by explaining where the two components originate, but it supplies no format edge cases or validation rules beyond the schema text.

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 specific resource and payload: "The live BTC Intel Score (0 to 100), its level and its date." The word "live" implicitly separates it from the get_delayed_score sibling, but the description never names or contrasts with that alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit two-phase invocation sequence: call without "payment" to receive an invoice and macaroon, pay externally, then call again with payment = "<macaroon>:<preimage>". That is clear operational context. It does not say when to prefer this paid live score over the sibling get_delayed_score, so the alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by specifying the return shape (a state word plus one summary line per page), which matters because no output schema exists. However, for a market-data tool it says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether values are snapshotted from the site at request time — 'as printed on the site' hints at mirroring but does not commit to staleness behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the identifying phrase 'The public market read'. The middle clause with the eight-page parenthetical is dense and slightly awkward grammatically ('for the Full Read and each Analysis page ... its state word and its summary line'), but every element earns its place by pinning down the payload.

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 compensates reasonably for the absent output schema by describing the per-page state word and summary line. Still, an agent cannot tell the response envelope, page ordering, or whether all eight pages are always present, and freshness — the key concern for market data — is unaddressed.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no filtering or scoping options are accepted.

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 resource — the public market read — and enumerates exactly what it returns: the Full Read plus each Analysis page (technical, on-chain, market structure, sentiment, macro, cross-market, liquidity, cycle) with a state word and summary line. That is far more specific than the name alone. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_brief or get_live_score, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusions against get_brief, get_live_score, or get_delayed_score. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'public market read' and the enumerated page list, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the aggregate/overview call or a duplicate of get_brief.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context: the content is verbatim text sourced from btcintel.org/intel-dca/, which tells an agent this is a static reference rather than a computed or account-specific result. It stops short of describing response shape or size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the source first and then the payload, with no filler or restatement of the tool name. Every clause carries information about what comes back.

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-optional-parameter static reference lookup with no output schema, the description covers source, scope, and included sections (per-plan behavior and the ladder notes). Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the text is trimmed or how large the payload is.

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 100% and the single enum parameter already documents that all three plans are returned when omitted. The description repeats the three plan names but adds no syntax, formatting, or filtering semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (the public Intel DCA ladder) and enumerates exactly what it contains: per-plan payday behavior at each Score level plus the ladder notes. That is far more concrete than the title alone and is clearly distinct from the score/read siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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 or when-not statement and no named alternative among get_live_score, get_delayed_score, get_market_read, or get_brief. The use case is only implied by the content description (fetch this to explain how a plan behaves on payday), which is enough for an agent to infer but not to be routed confidently.

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