get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_throughput_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is informational and not investment advice, and mentions a price of $0.10, but does not reveal behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The description focuses on content, not behavior.

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, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key metrics (throughput, DAG-width) and includes practical meta-information (price, category, disclaimer). Every sentence adds value.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should fully specify the return structure. It lists the metrics ('chain-block rate, estimated total DAG rate, TPS vs multi-month pre-fork baseline') but does not describe the format (e.g., JSON keys, data types, pagination). While it gives a good high-level overview, an agent might need more detail to parse the response correctly.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. With 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it adds context about the returned data (e.g., chain-block rate, TPS baseline) which indirectly helps the agent understand the tool's output.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning Kaspa throughput and DAG-width metrics, including chain-block rate, estimated total DAG rate, TPS vs pre-fork baseline, and hardfork impact tracking. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_supply_trend or get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_recent_blocks, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many Kaspa siblings (e.g., get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_dag_state, get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_chain_density). It only states it is informational research data and not investment advice, but does not explain under what circumstances a user should choose this particular endpoint.

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