get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_mining_economics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state read-only nature, side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness. The disclaimer about 'not investment advice' is a legal note, not a behavioral trait. Some transparency on data source (archival node) but insufficient.

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?

Description is two sentences plus a trailing note about price and category. It is front-loaded with the key metrics. Could be slightly more concise by removing 'Informational research data — not investment advice.' but overall efficient.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source. It lists many specific outputs, which is helpful, but lacks any indication of the response structure (e.g., data format, units) or pagination. Adequate but not complete.

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, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. It does not mislead or omit anything in this dimension.

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 lists specific metrics (KAS/USD revenue per TH/s/day, block subsidy, DAG-aware emission rate, electricity-cost model) and clearly states it provides Kaspa mining economics from their own archival node. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_supply_trend or get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_network_hashrate by focusing on economics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the description of what data it returns.

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