Retrieve coverage stats for KYT, including total labeled addresses, tier breakdowns, data sources, and update frequency to support compliance documentation.
Return KYT coverage stats: total labeled addresses (~29K+), per-tier breakdown (T1 OFAC, T2 threat intel, T3 on-chain freezes, T4 community), data sources, and update cadence. Useful for compliance documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only stats retrieval by saying it returns coverage statistics and enumerates the type of data returned. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or response format, but for a simple informational tool the behavioral disclosure is largely sufficient.
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 tightly written sentences deliver the purpose, key output contents, and an explicit use case without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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, low-complexity tool, the description is fairly complete: it identifies the output contents and use case. It does not specify the exact response shape, but with no output schema and no annotations a bit more detail about the returned format would make it fully self-sufficient.
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 zero parametersaine schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; it appropriately focuses on what the stats contain instead.
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 ('Return') with a precise resource ('KYT coverage stats') and lists the concrete contents: total labeled addresses, per-tier breakdown, data sources, and update cadence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on screening, lookups, cases, or health checks.
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 phrase 'Useful for compliance documentation' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.