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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses read-only status, that there is no team/investor/private-sale allocation, and precisely what each figure includes and excludes (pool-held tokens counted vs. excluded). It omits only return format/response shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries real meaning, but the phrasing is conversational ('both of the numbers that legitimately carry that name, because picking the wrong one silently produces a wrong percentage'), which is longer than the content strictly requires. Still an efficient, well-ordered definition overall.

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 must define what comes back, and it does so fully, explaining both supply figures, their inclusion rules and their intended consumers. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does valuable semantic work on the returned values (defining marketSupply vs. distributedSupply), but since there are no input parameters to disambiguate, no deduction is warranted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (return the token's supply) and goes further by naming the two distinct supply figures it returns. None of the sibling tools (get_liquidity, get_holder_distribution) overlap, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use marketSupply for market-cap questions, distributedSupply for holder-share/leaderboard/lock-boost questions. This is a rare case of naming when to use each returned value and why the alternative is wrong.

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