get_mining_pool_rankings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and output format but lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., data freshness, rate limits, or error handling). It does not contradict annotations, but for a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a second sentence. Both sentences are necessary and add value, with no redundant or wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, its output, and its purpose. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., data sources or update frequency) to fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 states the specific action ('Get top 10 Bitcoin mining pools by hashrate share'), resource ('mining pools'), and scope ('over the last week'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_mining_info or get_blockchain_info. It explicitly mentions the return data format (pool name, percentage, block count) and the analytical purpose (understanding mining centralization).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to understand mining centralization and pool dominance'), which differentiates it from general mining or blockchain data tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as get_mining_info for broader mining statistics.

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