get_mempool_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It successfully discloses what data is returned (transaction count, size, min relay fee), but does not explicitly state safety characteristics (read-only, non-destructive) or operational traits like caching behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every clause earns its place by defining the operation ('Get'), the scope ('quick'), the resource ('mempool stats'), and the specific return values.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the key returned fields, though it could be improved by confirming the read-only nature given the lack of annotations.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or input is needed by presenting this as a simple getter operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mempool stats'), and clarifies scope by emphasizing 'quick' summary data (transaction count, size, min relay fee). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'analyze_mempool' tool which implies deeper inspection, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 word 'quick' implies the intended use case (fast summary retrieval vs. deep analysis), but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidelines or named alternatives. The agent must infer when to choose this over 'analyze_mempool' or 'get_mempool_entry'.

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