get_v1_btc_derivatives_miner_attribution

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

The description discloses that data is derived from coinbase scriptSig parsing, includes explicit time windows and an Unknown bucket, and provides pricing ($0.03) and category (bitcoin-onchain). Given no annotations, it carries the full burden and does so well for a read-only data tool. It doesn't mention side effects, but reads are inherently safe.

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 a pricing and category line. Every sentence adds value, and the key information (data source, metrics, windows, explicit unknown handling) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (block-count, share %, windows, Unknown bucket) and how it derives data. It provides pricing and category. It could be considered complete for a simple retrieval endpoint, though it doesn't specify response format or example usage.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it does provide context about the output (block-count, share %, windows) which helps the agent understand what the tool returns. No additional parameter information is required.

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 returns Bitcoin mining-pool hashrate shares derived from coinbase scriptSig parsing, with specific metrics (block-count, share %) and time windows (1h/24h/7d/30d). The inclusion of an 'Unknown bucket' further clarifies scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coin_days_destroyed or ordinals_flow, which are about different Bitcoin on-chain metrics.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the description implies it is for miner pool attribution, it does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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