get_token_velocity_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only data fetch, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, caching, or the shape of the returned metrics. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no wasted words. It states the action and resource immediately, which is appropriate for a simple two-parameter data retrieval tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only a terse description, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what metrics are returned, how they are formatted, whether the data is live or historical, or what the 'days' parameter affects beyond the schema's 'Period in days' note.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('token velocity and turnover metrics') with a data source ('from The Graph'). It is clearer than a bare name, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'calculate_token_velocity', leaving some ambiguity about the difference between getting versus calculating velocity metrics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_token_velocity, query_fan_token_analytics, or other analytics tools. The only contextual hint is the data source, which is not enough to route the agent correctly.

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