get_weekly_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it defines the ISO week (Monday 00:00 UTC to Monday 00:00 UTC), specifies closed weeks only (no partial/in-progress data), and states the default span. It stops short of describing response shape limits, error conditions, or rate limits, but the temporal semantics are unusually well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with verb, resource, and the precise temporal scope before the long field enumeration. The output list is dense but each item is informative; the only cost is that the single sentence becomes long, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating returned content (block count, avg block time, fees, hashrate, hashprice in BTC/USD, difficulty adjustments, raw daily rows, methodology) and the default window. An agent knows what it gets and how the week is bounded; only edge cases and limits are unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the max of 8 weeks. The description adds the default span ('last 2 closed weeks') which reinforces the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it — the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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+resource with tight scope: closed ISO-week Bitcoin network stats, with the exact week boundary defined. The output list (fees, hashrate, hashprice, difficulty adjustments, BTC price) makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_monthly_averages, get_price_history, and get_hashprice.

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?

Gives context ('for weekly mining reports') and states the default window (last 2 closed weeks), which implies when it applies. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_monthly_averages or get_price_history, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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