get_v1_btc_derivatives_coinbase_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that messages are curated and printable ASCII, and provides a time window, which adds context. However, it does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or what happens when the window yields no results.

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 very concise: three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and includes key constraints (printable ASCII, 7-day window, price, category). Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return format. It describes content (messages, pool tags) and constraints but does not specify whether the output is a list, includes timestamps, or how to interpret results. The simplicity of the tool (no params) partially offsets this, but the gap remains.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per rules, baseline score is 4 for zero 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 it provides curated Bitcoin coinbase scriptSig messages (printable ASCII only), mentioning pool tags, BIP-comment campaigns, and political statements. This is a specific and distinct resource, easily differentiated from sibling tools like 'get_v1_btc_derivatives_fee_curve' or 'get_v1_btc_derivatives_reorg_stream'.

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 mentions a 'Window up to 7d', implying recent messages, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided, so the agent must infer usage context.

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