Report the authenticated account's RPC gateway usage: total requests, success rate, latency (avg + p95), per-key volume/latency/errors/last-used, and per-method and per-chain counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Filter by chain, e.g. 'eth_mainnet' | |
| hours | No | Look-back window in hours (default 24) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully states the authenticated-account scope and the exact metric breakdown, and 'Report' strongly implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential delays, output structure, rate limits, or whether any billing-related side effects occur.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence states the subject and then uses a colon to present a dense but organized list of delivered metrics. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds information.
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 and schema together cover what the tool returns and how to call it, but there is no output schema and no guidance to disambiguate from the closely named usage_stats and usage_volume siblings. For a report tool with no annotations, the lack of a statement about response format or non-mutating behavior leaves minor but real gaps.
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 covers 100% of the two optional parameters with descriptions, including a default value for hours, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning per-chain counts, which maps loosely to the chain parameter.
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 identifies a specific resource ('the authenticated account's RPC gateway usage') and enumerates the concrete metrics returned, which goes beyond the tool name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with similarly named siblings like usage_stats and usage_volume, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 guidance is given about when to choose usage_report over sibling tools such as usage_stats or usage_volume, and there are no exclusions or alternative conditions. The only implied usage is to report usage, which essentially restates the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.