portal_bitcoin_get_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions that include_address_activity requires extra queries and is slower, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits or destructive potential. A higher score would require more explicit safety or performance notes.

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 with clear sections and front-loaded key information. However, it has some redundancy (e.g., 'COMMON USER ASKS' and 'FIRST CHOICE FOR' overlap with 'WHEN TO USE'). Could be slightly more concise.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description covers the main use cases, provides examples, and explains when to use. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invocation context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete example using 'timeframe' and 'network', and the 'WHEN TO USE' section references timeframe. The parameter descriptions in the schema are also quite detailed (e.g., mode explanation). This exceeds the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the big picture for Bitcoin block, fee, and address activity over a recent or explicit window.' This is a specific verb-resource combination, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like portal_bitcoin_query_transactions and other analytics tools.

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?

Includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'DON'T USE' sections, providing clear context and alternatives. For example, it advises against using when raw transactions are needed, directing to a sibling tool.

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