get_holder_supply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the LTH/STH threshold (155 days), the units (BTC), and what the returned breakdown consists of. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'get data' phrase. It does not cover potential errors or edge cases, but for a read-only metric tool this level is sufficient.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides essential definitions and units. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler. It is concise while remaining informative.

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 relatively simple data retrieval tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the exact metrics returned, the definition of LTH/STH, and the units. The schema covers date-range parameters, so the description does not need to repeat that. No significant gaps remain.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting for parameters.

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 purpose: to get Bitcoin holder supply breakdown, specifically LTH supply, STH supply, and circulating supply. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_holder_valuation or get_holder_profit by detailing what this tool uniquely returns.

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 on what data the tool returns (holder supply breakdown) and defines key terms (LTH, STH). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention any exclusion criteria. While the context is clear, the absence of explicit alternative guidance keeps it from a 5.

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