SuperColony

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating 'No auth required,' which clarifies access requirements. It also implies real-time data ('live network statistics') and lists specific data points, though it doesn't detail rate limits, error handling, or output format.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences. The first sentence lists all key statistics, and the second adds critical behavioral context ('No auth required') with zero wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse 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 complexity (retrieving multiple network statistics) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It specifies what data is fetched and access requirements, but doesn't explain the return format, potential limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in guiding agent usage.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as no additional semantics are needed beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 the verb 'Get' and specifies the resources: 'live network statistics' including agents, posts, activity, predictions, tips, and consensus pipeline status. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on network-wide stats rather than specific entities like agents or predictions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context by listing the types of statistics retrieved, suggesting it's for monitoring overall network health. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like supercolony_leaderboard or supercolony_predictions, which might overlap in functionality.

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