The Bitcoin float: how much BTC is realistically left to buy. In-play supply = mined supply minus long-term-lost, government-seized, spot-ETF, and public-treasury coins, plus the full cohort breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining the calculation (mined minus lost/seized/ETF/treasury coins) and the cohort breakdown, which reveals the dynamic nature of the output.
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 one sentence plus an explanatory clause. It is efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly wordy with the formula but still concise.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the float is, how it is computed, and which components are subtracted. This provides complete context for an informational 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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter semantics but it is not needed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 returns 'the Bitcoin float: how much BTC is realistically left to buy' and provides a detailed formula. It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes from sibling tools like get_buying_gauge or get_treasuries.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not specify use cases or exclusions relative to siblings like get_buying_gauge or get_gauge_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
