crypto_bitcoin_hold_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source URL and that it returns a pandas DataFrame, but does not disclose data freshness, schema, or any other behavioral traits.

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 compact—three short lines—but includes a long URL and docstring-style tags, making it slightly less polished. Nonetheless, it is under 200 characters and front-loads the resource name.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for invocation, but it fails to describe the content of the Bitcoin position report or any notes on output columns. The simplicity warrants a middle score.

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 does not need to explain parameters. The empty schema is fully covered, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 identifies the tool as a Jin10 Bitcoin position report, provides the source URL, and states the return type via ':return: 比特币持仓报告'. This clearly indicates it retrieves a Bitcoin holdings report, distinguishing it from sibling crypto_bitcoin_cme which focuses on CME data.

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 usage context is provided—there is no mention of when to use this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no scenarios described. The description only states what it returns.

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