platform_stats

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: results are cached for about 60 seconds, and the response includes `meta.updatedAt` as an ISO timestamp. It does not discuss rate limits or side effects, but this is a simple read-oriented getter and the caching caveat is the most relevant behavioral detail.

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 redundant: 'canonical platform metrics' appears twice, and tracked wallets, chains, win rate, and BTC benchmark are listed in both sentences. The first sentence reads like a partial duplicate of the second, making the text wordier and harder to parse than a single consolidated list would be.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid inventory of response content and a freshness signal via `meta.updatedAt`. It could be more explicit about the exact structure of the 'safe aggregate performance subset,' but an agent still has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, and the rubric assigns a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description appropriately focuses on response content rather than parameter semantics, so no further parameter information is 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get canonical platform metrics' and then enumerates concrete content areas such as tracked wallets, chains, tokens, tools, languages, supported chain list, and performance metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from many sibling tools focused on narrower domains like liquidations, funding rates, or whale movements.

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 phrase 'canonical platform metrics' plus 'safe aggregate performance subset' gives clear context that this is the high-level platform overview rather than a live or event-specific feed. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use is reasonably evident.

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