Coinglass: getCoinglassBitcoinEtfList

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, fully covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness). It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or structured formatting issues.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, simple pagination parameters well-documented in schema), the description is adequate. It could be improved by mentioning the response format or default behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters (page, limit) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 a list of Bitcoin-based ETFs, using a specific verb ('Provides') and resource ('list of Bitcoin-based Exchange-Traded Funds'). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'getCoinglassEthereumEtfList' by specifying 'Bitcoin'.

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. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparisons to other Coinglass tools. The sibling list includes many similar tools, but the description does not help the agent choose.

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