Get account statistics

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

The description discloses that data comes from a server-side cache, that cache age is reported, and that stale caches refresh in the background. It also notes the output structure (first line summary, JSON detail) and that the call 'costs nothing.' This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and gives agents practical expectations for side effects and latency.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the data dimensions, cache behavior, and output format. It is efficient, but the long comma-heavy structure could be split into two or three sentences for easier parsing without losing content.

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's breadth (multiple metrics, time windows, cache, output summary), the description covers what the response contains (summary line + JSON detail), the cache refresh behavior, and the cost implication. With no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive and how to interpret it.

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 only parameter, 'days', is fully described in the schema with its range and default. The tool description restates the 30/90-day window but adds no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the schema carries the meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a consolidated read of account activity, enumerating specific metrics (creation counts, streak, storage use, generation volume, spend, most-used references, styles, keywords) and the optional time window. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account or list_creations, which focus on individual data types.

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 phrase 'One consolidated read' implies this is the go-to for a broad overview, and the description explains what data is included. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of, or in combination with, alternatives such as get_wallet_status or list_creations, nor does it mention exclusions.

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