bags_get_token_claim_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is free and read-only, which is valuable. However, it does not mention error behavior, empty results, rate limits, or whether the response includes creators with zero claims.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the return detail and cost/safety signal. 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 simple single-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it returns, the grouping scope, and that it is free and read-only. A small gap is that it does not specify behavior for tokens with no claims or invalid mint addresses, but this is minor for a stats endpoint.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'tokenMint' at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('per-creator claim totals for a token'), and specifies the returned fields ('royalty split and total claimed amount'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like bags_get_token_claim_events, which likely returns individual events rather than aggregated totals.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need aggregated per-creator claim totals for a specific token. It also notes 'Free read-only tier,' but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools such as bags_get_token_claim_events or bags_get_token_creators. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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