AgentFlow coverage stats: wallets tracked, agents labeled, hubs excluded, authorized x402 payers, transfers in the live window, last indexed block.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "index_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state side effects (though likely none), required permissions, or data freshness. The list of stats provides some transparency about output content, but lacks details about real-time vs. cached behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('AgentFlow coverage stats') and then lists relevant items. No excess verbiage or repetition.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description only names categories without specifying their format (e.g., counts, lists, booleans). An agent needs to know whether 'wallets tracked' is a number or a list of wallet IDs. This lack of structure reduces completeness.
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 effectively 100%. Baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as none is needed. The description does not hinder understanding of inputs.
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 indicates the tool returns 'AgentFlow coverage stats' and lists specific categories such as wallets tracked and agents labeled. However, it lacks an active verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', which would strengthen clarity. It is sufficiently specific to distinguish from sibling tools like real_agent_index or agent_pulse.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention any prerequisites, context where it is appropriate, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the listed stats alone.
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.