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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that sources/warnings are in the response and advises against presenting flagged values as exact. It also notes that C-Chain gasUsed is stable due to regulation, setting accurate expectations.

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 moderately long but front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: targets, parameter limits, behavioral caveats. Minor redundancy (e.g., mentioning max values) is acceptable for clarity.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the three targets, parameter usage, critical behavioral notes (warnings, gas stability), and edge cases. It lacks explicit output structure, but the purpose is well-served.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'target=contract uses days, max 365') and clarifies default windows. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 provides on-chain statistics via a query gateway and details three distinct targets (chain, contract, network) with specific metrics for each. It differentiates between recent aggregate and time-series windows, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use each target (e.g., contract for activity beyond 30 days) and provides limits (max hours/days). It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context signals show many siblings; the description sufficiently guides selection.

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