getStats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds 'Read-only and keyless' which reinforces and slightly extends the annotation-provided behavioral context (auth requirements). No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and is composed of 5 concise sentences. Slight redundancy ('Read-only and keyless' standalone) but overall efficient with no wasted words.

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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, common use cases, and exclusions. It is complete given the tool's low complexity and the presence of annotations and output schema.

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 100% for the single parameter (rationale), so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Takes no parameters beyond a short rationale' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema's parameter description already provides.

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 retrieves platform-wide totals for networks, DEXes, pools, and tokens as a single summary object. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getNetworks and getCapabilities by specifying it returns ecosystem-wide counts, not per-network figures.

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 explicitly lists example use cases ('how much data do you cover?', 'how many chains or pools total?') and advises when to use alternatives (getNetworks for per-chain breakdown, getCapabilities for onboarding docs). This provides excellent guidance on when to invoke the tool.

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