Protocol revenue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching revenue summaries but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('fetch revenue summaries') and includes key details ('aggregated or per-protocol'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely heavily on the schema and trial-and-error, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 description implies that parameters control aggregation level (per-protocol vs. aggregated) and time period, which adds some semantic context beyond the schema's enum values. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters well, so the description only provides marginal additional value, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('revenue summaries'), and distinguishes between aggregated and per-protocol summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'strato.events' or 'strato.rewards' that might also fetch data, though the focus on revenue is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to other data-fetching tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and parameters alone.

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