Live network state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: data provenance from stratum collector nodes, the confidence block fields (pool agreement count, live/static fallback, observation age), and the explicit error-rather-than-zeros policy for stalled collectors.

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?

Four dense sentences front-load the return fields, then explain reliability semantics, give usage examples, and route to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 well-documented required parameter and no output schema, the description supplies sufficient information about the return payload, confidence metadata, error behavior, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single coin_id parameter, including format, examples, and ambiguous-input handling. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but with full schema coverage the baseline 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 names the exact resource ('network state for one Proof of Work chain') and enumerates the fields returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools get_cost_of_production and calculate_solo_mining_odds, so an agent can tell them apart without opening their schemas.

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 gives concrete query examples ('what is Kaspa's current difficulty', 'network hashrate of Monero', 'current block reward') and explicit routing guidance: use get_cost_of_production for economics and calculate_solo_mining_odds for mining probability. This is clear, actionable when-to-use information with named alternatives.

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