bitcoin_market_pulse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is a single-call aggregator, it returns a structured payload, and it includes a risk assessment label with specific possible values. It does not mention data freshness or rate limits, but those are not critical for this read-only tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence summarizes the tool, the usage guidance is explicit, and the return fields are bulleted for easy parsing. Every section earns its place; the length is justified by the absence of an output schema.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return sections: bitcoin, dominance, total_market, and assessment with possible labels. It also explains the tool's role relative to other analysis tools, making the definition complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and fully covered; the description correctly focuses on outputs and usage rather than inputs.

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 a specific purpose: providing BTC macro context (price, dominance, total market cap, risk assessment) in a single call. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with chaining yahoo_price calls, so an agent can tell when this tool is the right one.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool WHENEVER analyzing any cryptocurrency to get the broader market frame, and explains why: a coin setup looks different depending on BTC behavior. It also names the alternative approach (chaining yahoo_price calls) and why this tool avoids that, giving clear selection guidance.

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