HIP-3 daily time series (volume, trades, traders, new users, OI)

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses the return shape (dated rows by DEX, or positional for raw=true), the default day window, and the lastDayPartial accumulation flag. It still doesn't mention pagination limits or auth requirements, but the annotations already 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?

Front-loads the tool's purpose and output shape in a compact sentence, then batches parameter notes efficiently. Slightly dense parentheticals cost a point but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only chart tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, default behavior, the partial-day flag, and all parameters. It is complete enough for correct invocation; only explicit sibling/alternative routing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the enum and format examples. The description adds only marginal clarification (dex accepts display name or on-chain prefix, metric enum values, days default). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'HIP-3 page charts: daily values per DEX'. It enumerates the exact metrics (volume, trades, traders, new_users, oi, oi_by_market, collateral_traders, collateral_oi), which distinguishes it from the broader daily/overview siblings. An agent can tell at a glance this is the HIP-3 daily time-series tool.

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?

Usage is primarily implied through the metric enumeration and the 'last N days' behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of which sibling to choose for different HIP-3 needs. It is adequate but leaves routing to the agent.

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