get_detailed_pairs_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool gets bucketed stats but does not disclose query limits, output format, or the snapshot behavior of the last bucket (which is only in the schema's bucketCount description). The description adds minimal context beyond what the tool name and schema already convey.

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 filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, though it could incorporate more detail without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return structure and any limitations. It does not clarify what 'bucketed stats' includes, how many pairs can be processed, or how buckets are arranged. These gaps make the description incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the phrase 'within a list of pairs', which only hints at the pairAddresses parameter. It doesn't provide additional context about duration, networkId, or bucketCount.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'bucketed stats' scoped to 'a given token within a list of pairs'. This differentiates it from the sibling 'get_detailed_pair_stats' which targets a single pair. However, the mention of 'a given token' is confusing since the schema has no token parameter, only pairAddresses.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The plural 'pairs' and the sibling naming imply it is for multi-pair queries, but without explicit exclusions or alternatives, usage is only implied rather than clearly instructed.

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