get_block_trades_daily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding for the agent.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, 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 has no parameters, an output schema exists (which covers return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on data scope (e.g., date range defaults), sibling differentiation, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent use despite the structured support.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. It implies the tool fetches daily data without specifying filters, which aligns with the lack of parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('daily block trade volume and value statistics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its siblings like 'get_block_trades_monthly' or 'get_block_trades_yearly', which offer similar statistics for different timeframes, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. With siblings like 'get_block_trades_monthly' and 'get_block_trades_yearly', it lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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