Daily priority gas (write/read) with top users

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: rows end yesterday by default, includeToday appends a partial row, and includeTopUsers adds per-day top-5 lists (schema notes it defaults false to keep output small). No rate-limit or pagination disclosure, but the temporal/optional-output behavior is well conveyed.

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 core output content is front-loaded and the description is dense without obvious filler. It is a single long sentence with several nested clauses, which slightly taxes readability but every clause carries 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, the description compensates by naming the return shape (totalGas in HYPE, count, top-5 payers, rangeTotals). Combined with full schema coverage of the 10 parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; a brief note on pagination via limit/offset would round it out.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the days default and the includeToday semantics, adding only marginal meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description names a specific resource ('Daily Priority Gas'/'Top Users') and enumerates the returned metrics (writePriority/readPriority totalGas in HYPE, count, top 5 payers, rangeTotals). It is clearly scoped to priority-gas revenue, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling revenue tools like flowscan_revenue_summary or flowscan_revenue_hypercore_fees.

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 states the temporal default (last 90 complete UTC days ending yesterday) and the effect of includeToday and includeTopUsers, which implies when to toggle them. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over the other revenue siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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