get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_dag_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a 'snapshot', implying current state, and lists what it returns. This is adequate for a read-only, parameterless tool. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes pricing and category without unnecessary 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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but the description explains the content (tips, sink, etc.) and use cases. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter info, and none is missing. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 a 'Kaspa BlockDAG topology snapshot' and lists specific elements (tips, sink, virtual chain, pruning point, blue scores). This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_supply_trend' or 'get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_recent_blocks'.

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?

It explicitly says 'For DAG-state monitoring, side-branch detection, sync verification', giving clear use cases. While it does not explicitly exclude other uses or compare to alternatives, the purpose is well-defined and the context is sufficient.

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