Bitcoin network health from our own node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that data is measured on the node and returns both a daily series and latest values, but does not disclose freshness, rate limits, or failure behavior. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 filler. It front-loads the triggering condition and then states what is returned, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete. It explains when to call and what kind of data is returned. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the exact response fields could help, but the current level is sufficient given the low complexity.

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 single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema with range and default. The description does not need to add parameter details; the schema carries the burden, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (Bitcoin network health from ByKaranteli's own node) and the exact topics covered: hashrate, difficulty, fees, and mempool congestion. This distinguishes it from the sibling market-analysis tools even without naming them.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call this when the user asks about Bitcoin hashrate, difficulty, fees or mempool congestion.' It gives clear usage context but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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