byte_get_network_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, providing strong safety guarantees. The description adds value by specifying the exact output fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and details of the output. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource ('PayPerByte network-wide statistics'), earning its place without wasted words.

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 the tool has zero parameters and is well-annotated (read-only, idempotent), the description adequately explains what the tool returns. The existence of an output schema further supports completeness, but the description itself covers the key statistics.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get PayPerByte network-wide statistics' and lists the specific statistics returned (total publishers, messages streamed, subscriber fees settled in USDC). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like byte_get_publisher (which focuses on a single publisher).

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 usage for network-wide statistics, and sibling tools like byte_get_publisher suggest more focused alternatives, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor any exclusion criteria.

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