get_statement_match_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only query (getting stats) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a simple retrieval, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, with the first acting as a title and the second adding detail. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning without waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only vaguely mentions 'how many transactions are matched, unmatched, etc.' It does not specify the exact fields or structure of the returned statistics, leaving the agent with incomplete information about what to expect.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'id' described as 'Statement ID'. The description adds context that the stats relate to matching, but does not elaborate on the id's role beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'statement match stats', explaining that it retrieves matching statistics such as counts of matched and unmatched transactions. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_statement_transactions or list_matches.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it contrast with other tools that might serve a similar purpose, such as get_transaction_matches or unmatched_summary.

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