get_v1_btc_derivatives_coin_days_destroyed

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

Despite no annotations, the description openly labels the data as a 'PROXY methodology' with a warning emoji, revealing its limitations and indirect nature. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the empty schema.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus two additional lines for pricing and category. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the methodology, limitations, pricing, and categorization. No further details are needed.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; a baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the tool returns an hourly Bitcoin Coin Days Destroyed proxy, using specific components (consolidation_ratio, fee_weight, volume, whale-tx). It effectively communicates the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 includes a clear usage caveat: 'suitable for trend signals, not absolute reserve-coin-age accounting.' This guides when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools.

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