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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it is a 'live' scoreboard (data may change), explains the three valuation lenses, and notes that CEBE/EV values are pending for some entries. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing data completeness and the meaning of returned fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Live mNAV scoreboard for major public Bitcoin treasury companies') and then efficiently lists companies, explains key metrics, and notes pending data. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise yet thorough.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the returned metrics and their meanings, including the three valuation lenses and additional BPS metrics. It also warns about pending fields. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the output structure (e.g., array of objects), but the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool with no parameters.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially), so the baseline is 4. No additional parameter info is needed, and the description appropriately focuses on what data is returned rather than input.

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 it provides a 'Live mNAV scoreboard' for major Bitcoin treasury companies, listing specific companies and detailing multiple valuation lenses (grossMNav, evMNav, netMNav) and additional metrics (bps, cebeBps, amplification). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bitcoin_float and get_treasury_history by focusing on a specific financial analysis for treasury companies.

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 obtaining current mNAV data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for historical data, use get_treasury_history). While the tool's purpose is clear, the lack of when-not-to-use or alternative references limits its helpfulness for agent selection.

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