get_metrics_count

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not explain whether the count is affected by the parameters, whether it requires specific inputs, or what the return value represents, offering no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 extremely concise (four words), but it sacrifices all informativeness. It is under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded, failing to convey anything beyond the tool's name.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what 'total metrics count' means, which metrics are included, how the parameters affect the result, or what the output format will be.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (chain, rpcUrl, contractAddress). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which do not convey how they influence the metric count.

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 'Get total metrics count' essentially restates the tool name 'get_metrics_count' with the word 'total' added. It provides no new information about what the tool specifically does or how it differs from sibling tools like list_metrics or get_metrics_map.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_metrics, has_metric, or quote_metrics. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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