pot_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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not specify data sources, permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether the statistics are real-time or cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 key action and metrics without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function and scope, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output format, which are important for effective tool invocation. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'period' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and description). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'for a given period', which aligns with but does not expand beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PoT statistics'), listing the specific metrics returned (total swaps, turbo/full counts, turbo ratio) and the scope (for a given period). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pot_query' or 'pot_stats', which might have overlapping functions, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'pot_query' or 'pot_health', nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or comparisons to siblings.

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