Bitcoin market context (paid)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: stale data older than 5 minutes returns null, missing history is reported in data_quality (never interpolated), and the tool is 'Descriptive only.' These are valuable details that help the agent understand edge cases. It does not cover payment/auth requirements explicitly, but the 'paid' title and parameter names imply that, so the description adds meaningful context beyond the 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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. It lists the core data returned in the first sentence and important caveats in the second. No fluff or repetition—every word 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?

For a simple market data tool, the description is complete. It enumerates all returned fields (price, changes, fee, percentile, mempool size) and explains data quality handling. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently clarifies expectations. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (preimage and payment_hash) having a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema covers all parameter meanings adequately, the baseline of 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 clearly specifies the tool's function: it returns the latest BTC price with 1h/24h/7d change, next-block fee percentile, and mempool size. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like btcmatic_discover (which likely focuses on discovery) and btcmatic_radar (radar-specific). The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving current Bitcoin market context and states it is 'Descriptive only' (read-only). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives like btcmatic_radar or btcmatic_condition_frequency. The guidance is implicit through the tool's purpose, but no exclusions or comparisons are given, so it does not fully meet the bar for explicit usage guidance.

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