get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval operation via the verb 'Get' and enumerates the returned statistics, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention any authentication needs, or describe the response structure, leaving some 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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word adds value, and the three listed stat categories are concise and clear.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool returns by listing the stat categories. It could optionally mention the response format, but for a parameterless stats call, the provided information is sufficient to invoke and understand the result.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the empty schema covers all parameters, and the description correctly doesn't waste space on parameter details.

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: 'Get AgentShield platform statistics' with a specific list of metrics (contracts verified, wallets monitored, threats blocked). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alerts or get_dashboard, though it doesn't explicitly call out the differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dashboard or get_alerts. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any explicit exclusions or preferences.

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