bitcoin_market_pulse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior context beyond that by detailing the return structure (bitcoin, dominance, total_market, assessment) and the risk assessment labels, which is not present in the annotations or schema.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a usage rationale and a structured return summary. Every section contributes meaningfully, and the length is justified by the richness of what the tool returns.

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?

Given the tool has no inputs and no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating all return fields and risk labels. It also provides usage context and alternatives, making the tool self-contained and well-understood.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no input semantics because none are needed; instead it clarifies the output format, which is appropriate for a no-input tool.

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 with a specific verb ('Single-call BTC macro context') and enumerates its components: price, dominance, total market cap, and risk assessment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that it provides macro context for any crypto analysis, contrasting with per-coin or other market tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this WHENEVER analyzing any cryptocurrency' and provides a concrete scenario (BTC dumping vs. alts leading). It also names an alternative approach (chaining yahoo_price + manual reasoning) that this tool replaces, making the usage boundary clear.

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