Get a party's transfer statistics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read operation ("Get") and optional date filtering, but could add that it is non-destructive and returns aggregated data without side effects. The behavior is adequately transparent for a statistics tool.

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 sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy or extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action 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?

The description covers what the tool returns and the optional date range. It does not mention output structure or pagination, but for an aggregate stats tool with no output schema, it is reasonably complete. Could specify that it returns a single object with the listed fields.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond restating the optional date range; it does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 retrieves aggregate CC transfer statistics for a Canton party, specifying the exact metrics (total/sent/received counts, volumes, unique counterparty count) and optional date range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transactions, which lists individual transfers.

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 implies usage for aggregate statistics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_transactions for individual records). No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios to avoid.

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