notary_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's addition of 'FREE' and 'No wallet needed' provides useful access/cost context beyond structured data. The 'live' attribute also adds a real-time behavior detail. These are valuable but not exhaustive; no mention of rate limits or response format is made, though annotations cover the safety profile.

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 high information density. It front-loads 'FREE' and 'live aggregate stats,' then lists the key data points, and ends with a clear access requirement ('No wallet needed'). Every word earns its place.

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 stats tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what data it returns and the access prerequisites. While it doesn't specify the exact response structure, the enumerated fields give an agent sufficient context to understand the output. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. For a no-argument tool, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing further to clarify about inputs.

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 provides 'live aggregate stats' and enumerates exactly what data is included: total notarizations, 24h volume, top models by attestation count, sealed/anchored Merkle batches. This distinguishes it from siblings like notarize_inference or verify_attestation, which perform actions rather than reporting statistics.

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 usage by positioning this as an aggregate stats endpoint with no wallet needed, suggesting it is for general monitoring. It does not explicitly mention 'use this for stats, not for specific records,' but the contrast with sibling tools like get_receipt and verify_attestation is implicit and sufficient for an agent to route appropriately.

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