agorion_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation (implying read-only) and describes what data is returned, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time vs. cached. For a stats tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get aggregate stats') followed by specific metrics. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate information about what the tool returns (aggregate stats with specific breakdowns). However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't address important contextual elements like authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling that would help an agent use it correctly.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles the documentation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get aggregate stats for the Agorion discovery network' with specific metrics (total providers, services, capabilities breakdown). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on Agorion stats rather than botindex or other domains, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'agorion_discover' or 'agorion_providers'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'agorion_discover' or 'agorion_providers' that might offer related functionality.

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