bags_get_partner_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool is read-only and on a free tier, which is useful, but it omits authentication expectations, how the configured wallet is established, and behavior for an invalid or missing partnerId.

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 concise sentence with the core action front-loaded, plus a short tier qualifier. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is reasonably complete, but the relationship between 'configured wallet' and the required partnerId is ambiguous. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of what data is returned would improve completeness.

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 input schema already documents partnerId as 'The partner's public key address' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and introduces 'configured wallet' without clarifying how it relates to the required partnerId.

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 names a specific verb ('View') and a concrete resource ('partner referral earnings'), and scopes it to 'the configured wallet'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as bags_get_token_analytics or bags_get_claimable_fees.

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 clearly signals when to use the tool: whenever partner referral earnings are needed. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool directly overlaps with this purpose.

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