get_node_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but for a zero-parameter read it only needs to signal that this is a passive lookup, which 'Get' and 'Shows' do. It does not state whether a node identity/auth is required or whether the stats are scoped to the caller's own proxy, which is the main behavioral ambiguity.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the second sentence largely restates it, only adding the 'proxy' and 'Lowdown network' specifics. One of the two sentences is close to redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should characterize the return values; 'contribution stats and network position' gives a rough shape but no notion of pagination, units, or whether the result is empty for unregistered nodes. For a simple zero-param read this is adequate but not complete.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the node is identified implicitly by the caller rather than by an argument.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get your node's contribution stats and network position,' which is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like record_interaction or compare_tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_lowdown, which is the nearest conceptual sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_lowdown or the other siblings, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer from the name that this is the per-node read counterpart to a network-level lookup.

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