get_pool_stats

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the specific data points returned (APY, TVL, total staked, fees), making the tool's behavior predictable. Though it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention rate limits, 'Get' strongly implies no side effects and the metric list is sufficient for this simple getter.

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 sentence with no filler, directly stating the action and key return metrics. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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 tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return data. It could explicitly differentiate from get_staking_info, but the distinction is largely implied by 'pool statistics' vs. personal staking info, making the description complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'protocol' with an enum and description 'Protocol to query'. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so it remains at the baseline expected for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'pool statistics' with concrete metrics (APY, TVL, total staked, fees). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling staking actions like stake_near/unstake and from get_staking_info, which likely covers personal staking details.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving protocol-level pool metrics, but doesn't mention when to choose this over get_staking_info, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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