metrics

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

The description only says 'Get metrics,' implying a read operation, but it does not describe what metrics are returned, any side effects, or prerequisites. With no annotations available, the description provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 sentence of 9 words, which is perfectly concise for this simple tool. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it could be slightly more informative by specifying the type of metrics (e.g., 'performance metrics') to set expectations.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Get metrics for the WhiteBit MCP server,' which identifies the action (get) and resource (metrics). However, it lacks specificity about what kind of metrics (e.g., performance, usage) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'health' or 'get_server_status'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'health' or 'get_server_status'. An agent would not know which tool is appropriate for what context.

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