Milli.gold platform statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: figures are rounded company-published totals and weights are in kilograms, which prevents misreading the numbers 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 short sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second carries the rounding/unit caveat and the sibling redirect. 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating the returned metrics, their units and their rounding. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether figures are all-time cumulative or point-in-time, which an agent might want when reporting them.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It uses the space instead to explain the units of the returned values, which is the closest analogue to parameter meaning here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Milli.gold's headline numbers') and enumerates exactly what comes back: users, trades, gold traded, gold held, branches. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling price tools, which the description also acknowledges.

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 the agent away for price data ('For prices use mg_get_price'), which is the main ambiguity risk given the sibling tools. It doesn't mention mg_price_history, so routing is not fully exhaustive, but the primary when-to-use is stated clearly.

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