Bitcoin network health from our own node

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

The annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds useful provenance and scope details: measurements come from ByKaranteli's own node, the node is blocksonly, and therefore no mempool series is available. It does not cover rate limits or response shape in depth, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loads the usage condition, and uses the parenthetical to disclose the blocksonly limitation without wasting words. Every part 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 read-only tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: when to call it, what metrics it returns, what form the return takes, and the own-node/ blocksonly limitation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the single days parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its 30-4000 range and 365 default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so 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 names the specific Bitcoin network metrics returned (hashrate, difficulty, block fees), states that it returns recorded daily series and latest values, and identifies the data source as ByKaranteli's own node. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic series or unrelated market-metric siblings.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: 'Call this when the user asks about Bitcoin hashrate, difficulty or block fees.' It also rules out mempool queries because the node runs blocksonly, but it does not name a specific alternative tool for mempool-related questions.

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