analytics / turnover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a vague validation hint ('known, matching') and says nothing about failure modes when denominators are missing or how results are shaped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is not the issue here; the missing content is covered under other dimensions.

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 an analytics tool with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and an undocumented pool/chain_id pair, the description should at minimum define turnover and state the pool scoping rules. It leaves an agent unable to call or interpret it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the two real parameters, pool and chain_id, and the description never mentions either. Worse, it references 'volume' and 'TVL denominator', which are not parameters at all, so it adds no usable meaning to the schema.

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?

It names the resource (turnover) and a precondition, but never defines what turnover is (presumably volume/TVL) nor how it differs from the sibling metrics analytics.tvl and analytics.volume_fees. An agent can guess the domain but not the exact computation.

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 'only with known, matching volume and TVL denominator' reads as a data-quality caveat, not a routing rule. It never says when to pick this over analytics.tvl or analytics.volume_fees, nor what to do when the denominator is unknown.

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