Quantum-exposed Bitcoin (daily first-party measurement)

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (ByKaranteli's own Bitcoin Core node), daily frequency, and provenance hashes for re-verification. This tells the agent exactly what kind of computation and guarantees are involved.

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 the call trigger and then uses a compact, well-organized list to enumerate return fields. No sentence is wasted, and the provenance-hash detail earns its place because it justifies the verifiability claim.

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?

With no output schema to lean on, the description fully enumerates what the agent can expect: exposed BTC, share of held value, UTXO count, script-family composition, dormancy cohorts, watch set, and provenance hashes. This is complete enough for an agent to select the tool and interpret its result confidently.

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 no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.

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 opens with a precise call condition and names the exact resource (quantum-exposed Bitcoin). It lists concrete synonymous user phrasings (quantum-exposed supply, P2PK coins, Satoshi-era exposure), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also clearly differentiates from the market-focused sibling tools, none of which cover quantum exposure.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool ('Call this when the user asks...'), giving clear contextual triggers. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the sibling list contains no overlapping quantum-exposure tool, so the absence of explicit alternatives is not a meaningful gap.

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