sequencer-latency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only nature, no mention that the answer is two summary rows (that fact lives only in the schema docstring), no units, no source semantics. For an unannotated network surface this is a substantial gap.

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 ten-word sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasted. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than crispness — brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a partially documented parameter set, the description should carry the load and does not: return shape, units, and the `source` dimension are all missing. An agent knows the topic but not how to call it correctly or interpret the result.

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 description says nothing about either parameter. With 50% schema coverage, `asset_class` is documented in-schema but `source` (defaulting to `base_onchain`) has no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate for that gap or explain what a source selection means for the returned latency figures.

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?

It names the specific metrics — block production interval and ingestion delay — for an L2 sequencer, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like gas-vol or depth. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb: an agent cannot tell whether it fetches, computes or streams, nor which sequencer or source the answer covers.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or exclusion, and no named alternative among the ~50 siblings. An agent must infer from the topic alone that this is the latency surface rather than gas-vol or data-coverage.

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