Live network state

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: data is measured by BackPow stratum collectors, ambiguity is rejected rather than guessed, stalled networks return errors instead of zeros, and responses include a confidence block describing observation age and fallback status. No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose and metrics, then confidence semantics, then error behavior, then usage and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 only one parameter and rich annotations, the description fully covers how the tool behaves, what the response includes, how to interpret confidence, and how to choose among siblings. Since there is no output schema, the description's explanation of return semantics and error behavior is especially important and is present.

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% parameter coverage with a detailed description of coin_id, including examples and ambiguous-input handling. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, so 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 a specific verb and resource: retrieving current network state for one Proof of Work chain, with concrete metrics like difficulty, hashrate, block height, reward, and block-time target. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming get_cost_of_production and calculate_solo_mining_odds as the tools for economics and mining probability.

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 explicit usage examples ("what is Kaspa's current difficulty", "network hashrate of Monero", "current block reward") and clearly states when to use alternatives: economics uses get_cost_of_production, mining probability uses calculate_solo_mining_odds. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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