dex_get_stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the data scope, but does not discuss potential caching, data freshness, or authentication requirements. For a simple stats tool this is adequate but not extensive.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and every word adds meaning. It lists the stats without unnecessary elaboration.

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 there is no output schema, the description is the sole source of information about the return value. It names the key aggregate metrics, which is enough for an agent to decide whether to call this tool, though the exact output format is not specified.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by clarifying what the output statistics cover, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'high-level statistics about the DexPaprika ecosystem'. It enumerates the specific metrics (total networks, DEXes, pools, and tokens), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like dex_get_networks or dex_get_network_dexes that focus on specific subsets.

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 clearly indicates this is for an overview of the entire ecosystem, implying it should be used when aggregate statistics are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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