Daily HyperCore fee revenue (native vs HIP-3)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real weight and delivers: rows are per UTC day oldest-first, fees are USDC strings, rangeTotals is included, the `days` window ends yesterday rather than today, includeToday yields a partial:true row, and history begins 2026-03. That is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 resource identity and return shape before the parameter mechanics, and every sentence carries information. It is information-dense to the point of near-cramped phrasing (multiple parentheticals), which slightly reduces readability but wastes nothing.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and their types, the row ordering, and the totals object. Combined with the time-window semantics and history start date, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 3 baseline applies, but the description exceeds it by giving the semantic edge cases: `days` counts COMPLETE UTC days ending yesterday, includeToday appends a partial current-day row, and time ranges may be passed as ms epoch via startTime/endTime. These interpretations are not derivable from the schema alone.

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 (daily fee revenue) and precisely what each row contains: nativeHypercoreFee for non-HIP-3 markets and hip3HypercoreFee for HIP-3 markets, plus rangeTotals. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling revenue tools like revenue_priority_gas and revenue_deployer_fees, which it doesn't overlap with.

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?

Explains the two selection modes concretely: `days` for the last N complete UTC days, or explicit startDate/endDate / startTime/endTime. It also anchors expected behavior by naming revenue_summary and the builder tools. However it stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-those rule or a when-not condition.

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