PoW mining news

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are aggregated from third-party feeds, returned as quoted external content with publisher and relevance score, and not represented as BackPow statements of fact.

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 compact and well structured: it states what the tool returns, clarifies the nature of the content, gives concrete usage guidance, and names alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what to expect: quoted external content, publisher, and relevance score. Along with schema-defined parameters and safety annotations, this is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gap: no explicit mention of ordering or time window, but 'recent' plus relevance scoring reasonably implies the behavior.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema carries the explanatory burden. The description adds only a brief mention of the optional coin filter, which aligns with coin_id but does not substantially extend parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool's resource ('news items about Proof of Work mining and network events') and the optional coin filter. It also differentiates the tool from its siblings by noting it returns quoted external content with relevance scores, not first-party factual statements.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples ('a halving, a difficulty swing, a pool outage, a chain upgrade') and points to alternative tools for numeric questions ('For numbers rather than narrative, use get_coin_oracle or get_cost_of_production').

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