Current Bitcoin Buying Gauge verdict: a 0-100 score (higher = historically better entry) from 10 weighted market signals (MVRV, Mayer Multiple, Puell Multiple, funding rate, Fear & Greed, price vs 30d MA, realized vol, time patterns, MSTR mNAV), plus the best upcoming entry window. Updated continuously. Methodology: https://galaxymind.space/methodology
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds value by detailing the score range, the specific market signals included, continuous updates, and a methodology link. No contradictions with 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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It conveys all necessary details efficiently, including a methodology URL.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (score, components, best window). It covers the essential information for a parameterless retrieval 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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description effectively explains what the tool returns without needing to describe 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 states the tool returns a Bitcoin Buying Gauge verdict as a 0-100 score, explains what higher values indicate, and lists the 10 weighted signals. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing solely on the buying gauge, not other Bitcoin metrics like float or treasury.
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 usage for assessing entry timing based on the gauge, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gauge_history or get_bitcoin_float. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
