iota_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the two traits that matter most for an agent: explicit cost ($0.002 USDC per call) and p99 latency (2000ms). Read-only, no-argument behavior is implied by the payload it returns. It does not mention auth prerequisites, rate limits, or failure modes, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool subject, then the payload, then usage, then cost/latency — a sensible priority order. The middle sentence is a dense run-on list of returned fields, but every item earns its place given there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, price, and call economics, which is what an agent needs to decide and call. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter snapshot tool; only auth/rate-limit and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 frames it as a single no-argument call ('mainnet in one call'), leaving nothing for the agent to supply or misconfigure.

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 states a concrete verb+resource ('IOTA mainnet in one call') and then enumerates the exact payload: epoch, checkpoint, gas price and transfer fee, supply, price/market cap, and per-validator staking data sorted by APY. This clearly separates it from sibling snapshot tools like sui_network and gas_price, and from transactional IOTA siblings (iota_tx, iota_notarize) by being a read-only aggregate.

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?

Two concrete use cases are named ('Use to pick a validator or to show network health'), which gives an agent clear context for selection. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer gas_price, crypto_prices, or iota_watch instead), so it is not a full 5.

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