Pool scorecard stats

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the data is public, may be delayed or wrong, and is educational only. It does not mention rate limits or whether history is bounded, which keeps it below 5.

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 compact sentences: the metric inventory is front-loaded, the disclaimer follows. The metric list is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating returned fields is exactly the right compensating move, and the freshness caveat covers the main risk of acting on the data. Minor gap: no mention of pagination, limits, or what happens when hours exceeds the schema maximum.

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 documents 'pool' thoroughly (format, case-insensitivity, separators) but leaves 'hours' undescribed; the description partly compensates with 'over the last N hours', clarifying the window semantics. With 50% coverage this is the expected baseline level of added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scorecard-style stats for one pool') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, which distinguishes it as a composite metric tool rather than a single-metric one. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_volume or get_ohlcv, so no sibling naming.

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 never says when to prefer this over get_volume, get_mid_price, get_ohlcv, or get_recent_trades, despite heavy overlap in returned data. Only an implied 'aggregated dashboard' use case is present; no exclusions or selection conditions.

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