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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses that data is precomputed every 5 minutes, the response includes computedAt and validUntil, stale data withholds rows with a dataNote instead of serving misleading info, and tokens with no flow in 30d are omitted (never zero-filled). These behavioral details go well beyond what a typical tool description provides.

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 information-dense yet concise. It opens with the core definition, then adds context about the AP/ETF use case and DEX exclusion, then covers data freshness and omission rules. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail, with no redundant or filler content. It is a single compact paragraph that front-loads the most critical information.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to understand what the tool returns: windowed aggregates (24h/7d/30d) with event counts, shares created/redeemed, netShares, and freshness metadata (computedAt/validUntil, dataNote). It also clarifies the conceptual foundation (primary-market vs DEX). Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to add parameter documentation. It implicitly communicates that the tool requires no configuration, which is appropriate given the schema has no properties.

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 function: it reports primary-market creations (mints) and redemptions (burns) per tokenized stock over 24h, 7d, and 30d windows, with event counts, shares created/redeemed, and netShares. It also distinguishes itself from DEX indexes by explaining that primary-market flow never touches a pool, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_stock_premiums or get_stock_multipliers.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: it is the authorized-participant read for an ETF desk and is not found in DEX indices. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state conditions like 'use X instead when you need secondary-market data.' The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it's strong but not perfect.

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