get_bitcoin_dominance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description explains what Bitcoin dominance is but doesn't describe how the tool behaves: whether it returns current/latest data, historical data, real-time updates, calculation methodology, data sources, refresh rates, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 reasonably concise (two sentences) but structurally problematic. It's entirely conceptual explanation without front-loading the tool's function. The first sentence should state what the tool does, not just define the metric. While not verbose, it's inefficiently structured for tool selection.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description should fully explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. Instead, it only defines the metric conceptually without specifying that this tool retrieves/returns that metric. For a tool in a server with 15+ sibling cryptocurrency tools, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's actual function and output.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters needing semantic explanation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to document and nothing is missing.

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 explains what Bitcoin dominance is conceptually but doesn't state what the tool actually does. It describes the metric itself rather than specifying that this tool retrieves/calculates/returns the current Bitcoin dominance value. The name 'get_bitcoin_dominance' suggests a retrieval function, but the description doesn't confirm this action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like get_fear_greed_index, get_altcoin_season_index, and get_btc_trend that provide related cryptocurrency metrics, the description offers no context about when Bitcoin dominance is the appropriate metric versus other indicators.

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