Milli.gold platform statistics

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: figures are rounded company-published totals and weights are in kilograms, which warns the agent not to treat values as exact or unit-ambiguous.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the caveat and the alternative. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only stats tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers content, precision caveats, and units. The only gap is not distinguishing itself from gold_milli_history, which shares the same domain.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing schema-side to compensate for. The unit note (kilograms) is about returned values rather than inputs, but it is the only semantic clarification available for a no-arg tool.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely enumerated resource: users, trades, gold traded, gold held and branches. It also explicitly disambiguates from the sibling gold_prices, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes price lookups to gold_prices, which is the most likely confusion given the sibling set. It stops short of mentioning gold_milli_history, so the boundary for time-series/trend data is left for the agent to infer.

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