get_network_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the returned data (hashrate level and trend) and its interpretive meaning. It does not mention potential limitations or response format, but for a simple read-only signal tool, this is adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and includes a useful parenthetical clarification. No wasted words.

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 the simplicity of a parameterless signal tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core output. It could specify units or exact format, but the level of detail is sufficient for initial selection and invocation.

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, so the description is the sole source of semantic meaning. It clearly explains what the output represents, including the 30/90-day trend and the miner conviction interpretation, exceeding the baseline for parameterless tools.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves 'Bitcoin network hashrate level and 30/90-day trend' with interpretative context ('miner conviction / security'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_hiring_signal or get_etf_flows, which address different topics.

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?

Usage is implied by the specific topic (Bitcoin hashrate) and the sibling set, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over alternatives. There are no stated exclusions or alternative references.

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