telemost_stats_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: the pay-per-call pricing (in USDC from the wallet) and the fact that individual metrics are populated only when the channel exposes them. This is useful but not extensive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence lists the metrics, the second clarifies scope and data availability, and the third adds pricing. No unnecessary repetition or fluff; it earns its place.

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?

The description provides a decent overview of what metrics are included, the public-channel constraint, and cost, but it lacks explanation of the region parameter, input format for the channel, and return structure (no output schema exists). Given the tool's moderate complexity and absent schema descriptions, this is a minimal viable description but with clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters. It does imply the 'channel' parameter means any public channel, but it entirely omits the 'region' parameter (cis/worldwide), which has an enum but no explanation. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's raw property names, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a channel analytics/stats provider, enumerating specific metrics (subscribers, growth, views, reach, engagement, ERR, mentions, forwards). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like telemost_stats_subscribers or telemost_stats_reach, which focus on individual metrics. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', so it's not a perfect 5.

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 phrase 'quick stats and health check of any public channel' implies a general-purpose overview use case, and the caveat that individual metrics populate only where exposed hints at limitations. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this aggregate tool versus the specialized sibling stats tools, nor any exclusion criteria. Guidance is implied but not directly stated.

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