TRNCH live stats

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts beyond them — no API key required and the 24-hour data window — but says nothing about refresh cadence or the response shape beyond the metric names.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the metric list is front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause — units in seconds and percent, 'No key needed', the 'use it first' directive — 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and discharges it by enumerating the returned fields with units. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call trnch_stats is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and spends its words on outputs instead, which is the right allocation.

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?

Names a specific verb plus resource ('Read live public numbers for the last 24 hours') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, but the read-only stats scope is plainly distinct from buy/sell/quote/heat execution tools.

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?

'Use it first to judge whether TRNCH screening is worth routing through' gives an explicit entry-point condition plus the 'No key needed' prerequisite. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it or which sibling to chain into next, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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