get_bitcoin_network_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully inform about behavior. It describes the return format (status label and score) and what the score considers (block production, hashrate stability, transaction volume). However, it does not disclose potential latency, caching behavior, or data freshness.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information—purpose, return format, and composition of the score. No wasted words.

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 and an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It could mention if the tool is free or requires authentication, but for a public network health check, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output format and the factors considered in the health score, which is beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 tool provides a 'simplified health assessment' with a single score and status label. The verb 'get' and resource 'Bitcoin network health' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_bitcoin_network_overview which likely provides more detailed 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?

The description starts with 'Use this to get a simplified health assessment' which clearly indicates the intended use case. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies for more detailed data one should use other tools.

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