trades_runtime_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only' and 'Does not increment counters,' which are important safety guarantees. It does not describe the return format or any error behavior, but for a simple read operation, the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 is front-loaded with the core action ('Honest KV view/download counts') and then adds essential behavioral qualifiers. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the return data looks like. It does not describe the shape of the counts (e.g., JSON structure, fields, or whether they are aggregated). While the operation is simple, an agent might need to know the output format to process it correctly. This gap prevents a higher score.

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 the schema is empty. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters (correctly), as none exist. It effectively compensates for the lack of a schema by providing context on what the tool measures.

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 precisely states the tool's function: 'view/download counts with human/bot split' for a KV store. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (skill, health, cite) which serve different purposes. The verb and resource are concrete and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it state any exclusion conditions. However, the distinct focus on stats/logs implicitly signals it is for retrieving counts rather than for skill execution, health checks, or citation tasks. This is sufficient but not proactive.

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