btc-systems-theory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the seven outputs, states the data source (mempool.space), and confirms no API key is required. It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or performance, but for a read-only analysis tool, the provided info is adequate.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that uses numbered items to enumerate the seven lenses. Every sentence adds value, with no filler. It is concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the key action and output list.

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 output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns by detailing each of the seven analysis components. It also includes information on data sourcing and API requirements, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'pool_window', described as a rolling window for mining pool distribution. The description adds semantic value by linking this parameter to the mining pool related outputs (Nakamoto coefficient, HHI index), giving practical context beyond the schema definition.

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 it performs a seven-lens systems theory analysis of the Bitcoin network, listing each lens explicitly. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'btc-game-theory' by indicating they pair for full analysis, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 mentions pairing with 'btc-game-theory' for complete Bitcoin systems and incentive analysis, providing context on when to use this tool in combination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool alone or versus other sibling tools, missing clear usage boundaries.

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