Daily HIP-3 deployer fees by DEX

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: rows are oldest first, values are USDC, default window is 90 complete UTC days ending yesterday, and includeToday appends a partial row. The note that these fees go to deployers and are excluded from headline protocol revenue is useful disambiguation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the endpoint path and core return shape come first, then defaults, units, and the revenue-scoping caveat. Every clause carries information, though the enumeration of all ten on-chain DEX names is somewhat list-heavy.

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, the description does the work of explaining the return shape (totalFee, byDex entries, rangeTotals overall and per DEX), units, and ordering. Combined with a fully documented input schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only filtering/pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters. The description only reinforces `days` (default 90, complete UTC days ending yesterday) and `includeToday` (today's partial row) plus DEX naming; it says nothing about limit, offset, fields, or the start/end time variants. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 deployer fees per UTC day) and even names the field set returned (totalFee, byDex, rangeTotals). This clearly differentiates it from sibling revenue tools like flowscan_revenue_hypercore_fees or flowscan_revenue_summary.

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 implied by the topic (deployer fees, not headline protocol revenue), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of the alternative revenue tools the agent should pick instead. The closing clause hints at scoping but does not route to a sibling.

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