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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description aligns with a safe read operation. It adds the high-level output ('volume and activity summary') but does not describe the response format, data granularity, or any limitations. Given the annotations, some credit is earned, but the description itself is not behaviorally rich.

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 a single, focused sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action and target. However, 'activity summary' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about the content, which would improve clarity without adding much length.

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 tool has simple parameters and clear annotations, but no output schema. The description gives a high-level indication of the return (volume and activity summary) but lacks detail about the format, field names, or how chainId filtering affects results. Compared to many similar sibling tools, this description does not fully differentiate the tool's specific use case, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no semantic value beyond restating 'receiver address', while format and chainId are already explained in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the informational weight.

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 a volume and activity summary for a specific integration partner, identified by receiver address. This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sodax_get_partners (which lists partners) and sodax_get_volume (which likely aggregates volumes).

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 implies it is for querying one partner's summary but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not say 'use sodax_get_partners for a list of all partners' or 'use sodax_get_volume_stats for global stats'. The usage context is understandable but not fully guided.

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