get_holder_profit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the Pro tier API key requirement and explains the interpretation of SOPR values, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention rate limits, return format, or other potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and lists metrics; the second explains SOPR interpretation and the access requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple with no required parameters and a clear scope. The description covers the main metrics, their interpretation, and the access constraint. Given the absence of an output schema, it does not describe the response structure, but the naming of metrics implies what will be returned. This is sufficient for a straightforward 'get metrics' tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic context about the parameters, such as how they interact or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get Bitcoin profit metrics' and immediately enumerates the specific metrics (LTH/STH Realized P/L and SOPR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holder_supply or get_holder_valuation, which focus on different data dimensions.

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 by specifying the exact metrics returned, making it evident when to use this tool. It also includes an access prerequisite ('Requires Pro tier API key'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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