signallord_get_btc_gold_ratio

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, establishing the tool as safe and read-only. The description adds context about the output (percent change, ratio) but does not disclose further behavioral traits like data freshness, limitations, or side effects. It provides moderate value beyond annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides relevant information without verbosity. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 presence of output schema (which defines return structure), annotations covering safety, and two simple parameters, the description is adequate. It explains the output content (historical comparison, percent change, ratio) and the use case. It is not exhaustive but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description coverage is 50%, meaning only the 'days' parameter has a description in the schema (which also appears in the tool description). The tool description does not add meaning for the 'response_format' parameter, nor does it provide additional insight beyond what the schema already offers. The parameter semantics are weak.

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 gets a historical price comparison and ratio between BTC and Gold, mentioning normalized comparison, percent change from period start, and the BTC/Gold spot ratio. This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools that focus on Bitcoin-only metrics (e.g., get_btc_metrics) or other comparisons (e.g., get_btc_vix_correlation).

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 context on when to use the tool: 'tracking Bitcoin's performance as a store of value relative to the traditional safe haven asset.' It implies utility but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. Among siblings, it is the only BTC/Gold ratio tool, so differentiation is inherent.

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