hatch_statsHatch UDB stats (decades, countries) + wiki lessons. Archive, not live 2026.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| archive | No | ||
| citations | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes | ||
| top_countries | No | ||
| by_decade_1900_2002 | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / archiveAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / by_decade_1900_2002Added value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / doctrineRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / nAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / provenance / properties / neverAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / top_countriesAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "citations",
+ "provenance"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by clarifying the data is archived and not live as of 2026, which is critical for an agent to interpret date relevance. No contradiction with annotations.
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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, front-loading the key idea of stats and archive status. Every word adds value with no 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?
Given no parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'temporal scope'. It could optionally detail the nature of 'wiki lessons' but is sufficient for a read-only tool with schema support.
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 zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for parameter documentation. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no further semantics are 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 identifies the resource ('Hatch UDB stats (decades, countries) + wiki lessons') and implies retrieval/access. It distinguishes from sibling 'hatch_search' by specifying it's static archive data, and notes the temporal scope ('Archive, not live 2026'). The verb is implicit rather than explicit, but the purpose is clear enough.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like 'hatch_search' or others. The description hints at historical data but does not state contexts where stats are preferred over search, nor when the tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.