Coinglass: getCoinglassBitcoinETFNetAssetsHistory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds modest context by specifying the data type (historical net assets) but does not disclose pagination behavior, data freshness, or potential request limits. Given strong annotations, the description provides acceptable but minimal extra value.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it is a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb phrase, which could be slightly improved for clarity.

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 simple paginated input schema, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It identifies the returned data (historical net assets) but omits details like time range, currency denomination, or that the result is paginated. For a straightforward data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (page number and items per page). It does not explain the significance of pagination or any constraints on the parameters.

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 the tool provides 'Historical net assets data for Bitcoin-based Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs),' specifying the verb (get implied), resource (historical net assets), and scope (Bitcoin-based ETFs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getCoinglassBitcoinEtfList, which lists ETFs, and getCoinglassEthereumETFNetAssetsHistory, which targets Ethereum ETFs.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the phrase 'Historical net assets data' implies it is for historical queries, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or which other tools might be more appropriate for different needs, such as real-time data or ETF listings.

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