get_btc_mempool_summary

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

Description reinforces read-only nature from annotations ('READ-ONLY'). Adds details about data source (bitcoind), specific fields, and integration with get_market_incident_status. Requires configuration, which is not in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single paragraph, densely packed with useful information. Every sentence contributes distinct value (purpose, alternative comparison, usage context, config requirement, issue references). Could be slightly more structured but remains highly informative.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, how it differs from alternatives, required configuration, and its role in the broader system (used by get_market_incident_status). Completeness is high.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description implicitly confirms parameterless call by listing output fields, adding no confusion. Baseline 4 for well-covered schema.

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 explicitly states it returns bitcoind getmempoolinfo output with specific fields (tx count, bytes, memory, feerate, fees). Distinguished from Esplora's mempool view by emphasizing it provides the 'real local view' and daemon admission policy. Also notes usage by get_market_incident_status for mempool anomaly detection.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use: for the real local mempool summary from bitcoind RPC. Contrasts with Esplora's view, implying this is the authoritative source. Explicitly requires BITCOIN_RPC_URL configuration, setting a prerequisite.

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