get_pending_size

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond rephrasing the purpose; it does not disclose any nuances about network handling or defaults beyond the schema's parameter description. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value here.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. There is no repetition of schema or annotation information, making it maximally efficient.

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 simple read-only count tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description's clarity about the return value (a number) and the resource (pending pool) is sufficient. The complexity is low, and the annotations plus schema cover safety and parameter semantics, so no further context is needed.

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 100% for the single 'network' parameter, and the schema provides a clear description ('Network name. Defaults to mainnet.'). The description does not repeat or add parameter details, but the schema already fully handles this, so the baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('number of transactions in the pending pool'), and clarifies the domain term 'mempool'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_pending_transactions' that likely return the full list.

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 implies its use case by focusing on the count, but it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives such as 'get_pending_transactions'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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