get_onchain_pulse

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return value categories (mempool congestion, fees, etc.) but omits operational details: safety profile (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. The 'Get' prefix suggests read-only but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

Single efficient sentence with action front-loaded. The colon-delimited list of six specific metrics adds precise value without verbosity. No filler words or redundant phrases.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating six specific return categories that would typically appear in an output schema. Lacks only operational metadata (rate limits, caching) to be fully complete.

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 present. According to scoring rules, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter explanation.

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?

Excellent specificity: verb 'Get' + resource 'Bitcoin on-chain health' with six explicit metric categories (mempool congestion, fees, miner distribution, etc.). Clearly distinguishes from sibling get_chain_context (general blockchain data) and get_asset_context (market data) by focusing specifically on Bitcoin network health metrics.

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 guidance or comparison to siblings like get_chain_context or get_defi_health. However, the highly specific scope ('Bitcoin on-chain health') makes the intended use case implied—users should call this when they need Bitcoin network metrics specifically.

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