get_day_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the timestamp semantics (24hr period starting at 00:00 UTC), return format, and sorting order. However, it does not disclose behavior for null bridge_id (whether it aggregates all bridges or errors), data availability, error handling, or rate limits.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter details and return format. It uses a structured list but could be more visually separated (e.g., bullet points). No unnecessary information is present.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description explains the return format in detail (columns and sorting). It covers parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks information on error conditions, pagination, or limits, which for a simple fetching tool is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains timestamp as a Unix timestamp for the day, chain slug from list_chains, and bridge_id as optional from list_bridges. The timestamp semantics (24hr period starting 00:00 UTC) are explicitly defined, adding clarity beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: fetching a 24hr token volume breakdown for a bridge on a specific day. It uses the specific verb 'Fetch and return' and identifies the resource (bridge). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_historical_volumes', though the day-specific nature and token breakdown provide implicit distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions parameters that reference 'list_chains' and 'list_bridges', suggesting prerequisites, but does not state usage context or exclusions. Sibling tools exist (e.g., get_historical_volumes) with no comparison provided.

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