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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it is free tier, covered by Pipeworx's own Solscan key with no caller key required, and the vendor returns a 400 on invalid range values.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then cost/auth, then the argument rule. No filler and nothing buried.

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 output schema, the description does state what comes back (daily totals, both SOL and USD), and it covers cost and argument exclusivity. Minor gaps remain around response shape/history limits, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 would be 3. The description still adds the mutual-exclusivity rule ('not both'), which sharpens the schema's softer 'Ignored if from_date/to_date are given' wording. It does not restate the enum values, but the schema covers those.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: daily total active stake on the Solana network, with units (SOL and USD). That is distinct enough from siblings like get_network_fees or get_network_compute_units that an agent can route correctly, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 gives argument-selection guidance ('Pass range OR from_date+to_date, not both') and notes the free tier, but says nothing about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any non-parameter preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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