get_mining_pool_rankings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and successfully specifies the time window ('last week'), result limit ('top 10'), and return structure ('pool name, percentage...'). It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but covers the essential behavioral constraints for this query type.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first defines the operation and scope, second specifies return values, third provides usage context. Information is front-loaded with the core action, making it immediately parseable.

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?

Appropriately complete for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema. The description supplements the structured output by previewing the return fields (pool name, percentage, block count) and clearly defining the query constraints without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get'), resource ('Bitcoin mining pools'), and specific scope constraints ('top 10', 'by hashrate share', 'last week'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mining_info or analyze_block which handle different data domains.

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?

Provides clear positive guidance ('Use this to understand mining centralization and pool dominance') establishing the analytical context. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, though no direct sibling alternative appears to exist for pool rankings specifically.

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