spectra_get_protocol_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as getting stats (read-only) and includes extensive protocol context (rebase formula, emissions decay). It does not mention any side effects or restrictions, but the read-only nature is clearly implied. Could be slightly improved by explicitly stating no side effects, but overall transparent enough.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by useful protocol context and a pointer to an alternative. It is not overly long, though the protocol context adds some verbosity. Every sentence serves a purpose; no waste.

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 comprehensive context: detailed rebase formula explanation, emissions decay behavior, gauge emissions boost reference, and a link to a related tool. It fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke 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 input schema has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The rule sets baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds value by explaining the output content beyond the empty schema.

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 gets Spectra protocol-wide statistics, listing specific data points (SPECTRA token supply, circulating supply, current weekly emissions, rebase formula). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like spectra_get_ve_info by recommending that for live veSPECTRA data.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for questions about SPECTRA tokenomics or protocol health' and provides an alternative: 'Use spectra_get_ve_info for live veSPECTRA data and boost calculations.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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