get_monthly_averages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the UTC aggregation convention and the precondition that the month be complete, but says nothing about error behavior for incomplete months, permissions, or response shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the resource and metrics lead, and the completeness constraint closes. Every clause adds information.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned metrics and units in place of a return-value spec. Only the absence of annotations leaves a minor gap around error/precondition handling.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented there, including a format example, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's "(UTC)" adds only marginal clarification about timezone of aggregation beyond the schema's own month format.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (calendar-month averages) and enumerates the exact metrics returned — BTC price, network hashrate, hashprice — with their units (USD and BTC). This clearly separates it from aggregation siblings like get_weekly_stats, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"For monthly mining reports" supplies a clear use context, and "The month must be complete" is an effective implicit exclusion (no current/partial months). It stops short of naming an alternative such as get_weekly_stats or get_price_history for finer-grained data.

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