nexo_claim_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'statistics', suggesting a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Critical behavioral traits like data safety are left to inference.

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 extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient but sacrifices explanatory value. It fails to distinguish the tool clearly or provide context. While it is front-loaded, it is under-specified for a tool that could benefit from brief output details.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'graph statistics' and 'attention counts' mean. The tool is low complexity (0 params), but the return format or scope of statistics is not explained. The description feels incomplete for a stats tool.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 'Claim graph statistics and attention counts' vaguely indicates the tool returns aggregated data about claims, but the phrasing is ambiguous ('Claim' could be verb or noun) and lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'Get' or 'Retrieve'). It distinguishes from siblings like nexo_claim_search or nexo_claim_get by suggesting statistical output, but the purpose is not crisply defined.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative claim tools (e.g., nexo_claim_get, nexo_claim_search, nexo_claim_verify). No when-not-to-use information or prerequisites are provided. The usage context is only implied by the name and short description.

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