get_registry_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The name and summary imply a read-only stats operation, and 'last crawl time' conveys freshness, but it does not explicitly state side effects, auth needs, caching, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the returned metrics with no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter summary tool.

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?

For a simple no-parameter stats tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates what will be returned. It could be stronger by explicitly confirming read-only behavior and freshness semantics.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The description adds value by enumerating the kinds of statistics returned, though no parameter semantics are needed.

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 identifies the resource as a registry summary and enumerates the specific metrics returned: total/LIVE counts, LIVE by chain, median price, last crawl time, and router health. It clearly differs from the search/route/requirements siblings, though it does not 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?

Usage is implied by 'Registry summary': call this when aggregate registry statistics are needed. It does not state when not to use it or compare it with sibling tools.

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