get_ltc_block_stats

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, idempotent, and open world. The description adds that it is a mirror of a BTC tool, requires a specific RPC URL, and references implementation issues. No contradictions.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the read-only nature and mirror relationship. Every sentence adds value: safety, purpose, prerequisite, and reference.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and relationship to sibling tools. It does not describe return format, but the mirror relationship implies similarity to `get_btc_block_stats`.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema description already details the single parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 it is READ-ONLY and provides litecoind `getblockstats` output. It explicitly mirrors `get_btc_block_stats` for LTC, making the purpose and resource unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool (for LTC block stats) by referencing its BTC mirror. It also mentions a required configuration (LITECOIN_RPC_URL). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but the context is sufficient.

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