get_network_statsGet aggregate ~alter network statistics. Use this for a health check or to show network scale. Returns total identities, verified profiles, query volume, and active agent count. Free L0, no authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds useful context: 'Free L0, no authentication required' and the specific return fields (total identities, verified profiles, query volume, active agent count). This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose, then add use cases, return fields, and access details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description fully covers the tool's purpose, use cases, return content, and access requirements. With no output schema, listing the returned metrics is sufficient. The simple scope and strong annotations mean no additional context is needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it focuses on the output metrics, which is appropriate.
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 gets aggregate network statistics, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('~alter network statistics'). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only network stats tool and names specific metrics returned.
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 says to use it for a health check or to show network scale, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only tool.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: alter_verify and alter_resolve_handle both check if a handle exists, and hello_agent and get_started both serve as introductions. However, descriptions clarify the distinctive features (canonical form vs simple existence; server info vs overview), so most pairs are distinguishable.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use the alter_ prefix (alter_login_status, alter_whoami), while others use bare verb_noun forms (describe_traits, get_network_stats). Verbs vary across describe, get, hello, list, recommend, and register, making the set feel disjointed and unpredictable.
With 14 tools, the count is within the ideal range for an identity infrastructure server. There are a few redundant tools (hello_agent vs get_started, verify vs resolve), but overall the surface is reasonably scoped without being overwhelming.
The server covers registration, existence checks, and reference data, but lacks any tool for querying identity fields (despite describe_competencies and describe_traits hinting at query_field). There are also no update or delete operations for identities or presence, leaving significant gaps for common workflows.