b20_statsReport B20 Check's own live usage: how many B20 tokens are indexed and how many paid calls and unique payers it has served in the last 30 days (from the public Coinbase discovery API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | ||
| lastUpdated | No | ||
| snapshotBlock | No | ||
| tokensIndexed | No | ||
| l30DaysTotalCalls | No | ||
| l30DaysUniquePayers | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds context about live usage from a public API, the 30-day window, and specific metrics, enriching transparency beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('report...live usage') and efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its data source. Could be slightly more explicit about the output structure, but the provided details are sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
Tool has zero parameters; schema coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No additional parameter information needed.
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 explicitly states the tool reports live usage of B20 Check, specifying metrics (indexed tokens, paid calls, unique payers) and time window (last 30 days) and data source (public Coinbase discovery API). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool verify_b20_token, which likely focuses on individual token verification.
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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving aggregate usage statistics, and the sibling tool context suggests it is not for verifying individual tokens. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools serve entirely different purposes: b20_stats reports server usage metrics, while verify_b20_token checks token legitimacy. No overlap or confusion possible.
Both tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a descriptive prefix (b20_) and a verb_or_noun (stats, verify). No inconsistency.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its specific domain (B20 token verification and server stats). It covers the essential operations without being overly thin.
The server provides the core needed operations: verify a token and get server stats. Minor gaps like listing all B20 tokens or historical data are not essential for the stated purpose.