get_usage_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what data is returned but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's a read-only operation, how frequently data is updated, whether it includes historical data, or if there are rate limits. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and what it displays. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The German language structure is clear and efficient with no 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate functional information about what data is returned. However, it lacks important contextual details: no information about permissions needed, data freshness, or whether this is a monitoring/admin tool versus general usage. Given that sibling tools are all DeFi-related, this server-monitoring tool's context isn't fully established.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so there's no need for parameter documentation. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input parameters. With no parameters to document, this meets the baseline expectation.

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's purpose: retrieving usage statistics for the MCP server, specifically listing total tool calls, calls per tool, and first/last call timestamps. It uses specific verbs ('abrufen' - retrieve, 'zeigt' - shows) and identifies the resource (MCP server usage statistics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all related to token/DeFi operations rather than server monitoring.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given that all sibling tools are focused on token/DeFi operations while this tool monitors server usage, the distinction is implicit but not stated.

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