get_holder_valuation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about MVRV thresholds for overheating and undervaluation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose operational behaviors such as data source, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but it's not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence enumerates the metrics clearly; the second adds a brief historical interpretation. No redundant or wasted 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 is simple with no output schema. The description lists the metrics returned, which gives the agent a good idea of the output. It doesn't describe the return structure (e.g., time series vs single point), but given the low complexity, it's reasonably complete. It could benefit from mentioning that these are daily historical data points, but not required.

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 includes full descriptions for all three parameters (days, end_date, start_date). The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as departures interactions or date formatting, so it's at baseline given 100% schema coverage.

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 it retrieves Bitcoin valuation metrics and explicitly lists the specific metrics (Realized Cap, Realized Price, LTH/STH, MVRV, Unrealized P/L). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_holder_supply and get_holder_profit by focusing on valuation ratios, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives interpretive thresholds for MVRV, which is more about analyzing output than deciding tool choice. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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