get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_timeseries

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it is historical, server-side aggregated, max 1000 points, and informational only. It also mentions months of collection and price. However, it lacks details about potential side effects, response format, or data freshness.

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 a single sentence with a list of metrics, concise and front-loaded. It includes key info like max points and price. Could be slightly more structured with line breaks, but it is 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?

No output schema, but description lists metrics and limits. However, it does not specify time units, data format, or whether data is daily, hourly, etc. More detail would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter semantics. It compensates by listing the metrics returned, which gives meaning to the output. 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 returns historical timeseries of Kaspa network metrics and lists specific metrics like hashrate, difficulty, etc. It distinguishes from other Kaspa tools by being a broad aggregated timeseries, though it could explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like supply_trend.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or cases where other tools would be more appropriate.

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