taskmarket_market_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Calling the result 'stats' implies a read-only, side-effect-free call and it discloses the two return values, but it says nothing about permissions, snapshot staleness/recency, or that the escrow figure is a point-in-time aggregate.

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?

Two tight sentences with the returned values front-loaded and the usage note trailing. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does the essential job of stating exactly what the aggregate contains. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around recency/snapshot semantics and explicit routing to delegation siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no parameter-semantics burden on the description. Baseline of 4 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 names a specific resource (marketplace-wide stats) and enumerates exactly what is returned: total task count and the total USDC reward pool currently escrowed. This clearly separates it from sibling task-listing/lookup tools, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

It provides one usage cue, 'use to gauge liquidity before relying on delegation,' which implies context but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., find_delegatable_tasks or prepare_delegation). The guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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