get_cycle_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the functional behavior (aggregate vs individual tracks) but omits details like output format, pagination, or whether it's a read-only operation; though 'Get' implies read-only. The description adds some value but lacks rich context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the return data looks like. It covers the core distinction between modes but leaves the return structure and edge cases (e.g., date overrides) to the schema. Given moderate complexity, it is adequate but incomplete.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the type parameter's behavior. The description repeats the type behavior and adds limited context about index reference points, but does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 retrieves Bitcoin cycle performance data and explains it shows price progression indexed from cycle reference points. It differentiates aggregate vs individual modes, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_prices.

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 clear context that omitting type returns aggregate comparison and including type returns individual cycle tracks, implying when to use each variant. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_prices or render_chart.

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