get_credit_market_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden and does much of it: the [FREE] tag discloses cost, the framing as "stats" implies a non-mutating read, and the enumerated metrics substitute for the missing output schema. Gaps remain — nothing about data freshness, snapshot cadence, or whether figures are all-time versus rolling — which matters for a market-sizing call.

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, cost signal and scope front-loaded, followed by the metric list and a use-case closer. The metric enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema; only minor trimming is possible.

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 zero-param, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, cost, contents, and intended use. The one real omission is temporal semantics — whether these numbers are live, daily, or cumulative — which an agent needs to interpret a "credit market" snapshot.

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 there is no parameter semantics to add; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals that the call is unfiltered and protocol-wide, which implicitly tells the agent there is no scoping input to supply.

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 names a specific resource — protocol-wide SolvScore credit market statistics — and enumerates the exact metrics returned (agents scored, credit capacity in USDC, bonds outstanding/slashed, quote-to-approval decline rate, average and top trust score). That makes it clearly distinguishable from per-agent tools like get_credit_ladder or get_agent_trust_pulse without opening a schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Useful for sizing the agent credit market before you lend into it" gives a concrete use context tied to a downstream action (underwrite_agent_loan and friends). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative tool for per-agent detail, so it sits at clear-context-but-no-exclusions.

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