Revenue summary (last 1 / 7 / 30 complete days)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the exact time windows (last 1/7/30 complete UTC days), the separate current partial day, the trailing-7-day annualized run-rate, and a clarifying note that deployer fees are paid to deployers, not protocol revenue. It also discloses the underlying data source (three /api/gossip/info series), which helps an agent trust staleness/coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and the source, with no promotional filler. It is somewhat long and packed, but every clause (metrics, windows, partial day, run-rate, source) 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 does most of the work by enumerating the metrics and windows returned, giving an agent a good picture of the response. The only gap is the projection/fields mechanism, which the schema already covers, so the definition is largely complete for a read-only aggregate.

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 single `fields` parameter and its _fieldsNotFound behavior are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (convenience aggregate) and resource scope (native HyperCore fees, HIP-3 HyperCore fees, deployer fees, priority gas over 1/7/30 days), and positions itself as the aggregate of the three component series that appear as siblings. It distinguishes itself functionally from the individual flowscan_revenue_* tools, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Calling it a 'convenience aggregate' implies you use this when you want a combined overview rather than the individual fee series, but the description never states when to prefer this over flowscan_revenue_hypercore_fees / _deployer_fees / _priority_gas, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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