signallord_get_btc_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that data is real-time and that a premium tier provides additional on-chain metrics, which goes beyond the 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?

Three concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second lists returned data, and the third mentions premium tier. No fluff, front-loaded, and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data points), annotations (safe read), and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the scope of data and the premium tier. It does not mention errors or pagination, but these are minor gaps.

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 only parameter 'response_format' is not described in the description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter, but it does not. The parameter is trivial with a default, but the omission reduces clarity.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Bitcoin metrics', listing specific data points like price, volume, derivatives, and exchange flow. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on more specific metrics.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. The listing of broad data points implicitly suggests it for general BTC metrics, but no clear guidance on when-not-to-use or which sibling to prefer.

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