get_coindays

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the conceptual meaning of Coin Days but does not disclose operational behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, required authentication, rate limits, data availability constraints, or the return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 two sentences: the first lists the metrics, the second provides a brief conceptual explanation. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and every phrase adds value. This is an example of efficient, well-structured description.

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?

The tool is a simple metric getter with 3 optional, well-described parameters and no output schema. The description clearly enumerates the metrics returned, and the schema's 'days' description implies a daily time-series structure. While it lacks explicit return-shape details and alternative guidance, the combination of description and schema is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states (e.g., start_date overrides days). This matches the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage with no added parameter details.

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's function: 'Get Coin Days metrics' followed by a specific list of metrics (CDD, binary CDD, supply-adjusted CDD, liveliness, etc.). This uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_holder_supply, which target different metric families.

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 implies usage when Coin Days metrics are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use this instead of get_prices for on-chain coin-days data' or any mention of related tools, so it only meets the 'implied usage' benchmark.

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