Get Monthly Stats

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the aggregation window is the current month (not arbitrary), the scope is tenant-wide across both payins and payouts, and the metric set is count/volume_brl/platform_fee_brl.

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?

Two short sentences: the scope and metrics come first, the return shape second. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the 'No arguments' note prevents wasted schema exploration.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the returned fields and their payin/payout + total breakdown. Minor omissions remain — currency semantics of volume_brl, whether the month is calendar or rolling, and timezone — but nothing blocking.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description still confirms 'No arguments,' which aligns with the empty schema. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get the current month's volume and platform fees') and scopes it to the tenant across payins and payouts. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling ashar_get_daily_stats or ashar_get_fee_rates, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Get the current month's...' implies usage (monthly aggregation rather than a date range), but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over ashar_get_daily_stats. The agent must infer the choice from the tool names alone.

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