get_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only reveals 'paid' and optional timeframe. It does not disclose what the brief contains, how it is generated, update frequency, or access requirements, leaving key behavioral traits unknown.

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?

One brief sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, optional parameter, and paid status. No wasted words, though the terse style contributes to incomplete information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an 'intelligence brief' includes, how it compares to other get_* tools, or what timeframe options are available beyond the vague example.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: timeframe is described as optional with an example. The description adds 'optionally per timeframe' but no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it provides an 'Aggregated Bitcoin intelligence brief', which is a clear verb+resource combo, but 'intelligence' is vague and does not specify what data is included. It also does not differentiate from siblings like get_latest_forecast or get_network_snapshot.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or related sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific needs.

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