get_btc_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the dependency on 'Strike wallet,' which is useful context, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description does not contradict annotations, but it could provide more behavioral insights for a tool with external dependencies.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and a critical constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and a key dependency, but lacks details on return values (e.g., numeric price, timestamp) or potential errors, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and constraints, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get'), resource ('current Bitcoin price'), and unit ('in USD'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'exchange_currency' by focusing solely on Bitcoin price retrieval without conversion or other financial operations.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'Only available with Strike wallet,' which indicates a prerequisite or dependency. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'exchange_currency' for other currencies or conversions), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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