get_mining_pools_hashrates_3month

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses that the tool returns top 10 pools with rank, name, average hashrate in EH/s, and network share percentage. It also notes the data represents historical performance over 3 months, providing a stable view. This is sufficient for a read-only tool; no contradictions exist.

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 efficient: the first sentence conveys the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of metrics, and a closing use-case paragraph. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the essential action and scope.

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 takes no parameters and has an output schema (likely defined elsewhere), the description provides all necessary context: what the tool returns, the exact metrics, the timeframe, and appropriate use cases. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool without ambiguity.

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, so the description's burden is high. It fully compensates by explaining exactly what the tool returns and the context of the data. It adds meaning beyond the empty schema, detailing each returned field and their significance.

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 that the tool gets the top 10 Bitcoin mining pools by average hashrate over the last 3 months. It specifies the resource (mining pools), the metric (hashrate), the timeframe (3 months), and the ranking (top 10). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_top_10_mining_pools_rank' which likely provides current rank, and 'get_mining_pool_by_slug' for a single pool.

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 explicitly lists use cases: analyzing trends, understanding distribution, identifying dominant pools. While it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, the specific timeframe and metric make its usage context clear. It implies use for historical trend analysis versus short-term or current metrics from sibling tools.

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