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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool is free and unsigned and that its output is derived entirely from existing participant entries, strongly implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It does not explicitly say 'does not modify state', but the wording effectively communicates that it is an observational aggregate.

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, well-structured sentence with a front-loaded resource name followed by a colon and a compact enumeration of contents. It is efficient and contains no filler, though the list is slightly dense.

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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool reports: inflows, outflows, fee pool, recirculation, and velocity. It does not spell out the response structure, but the named economic categories give an agent a solid expectation of the returned data.

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% for the single 'window' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'days of velocity window, default 7'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 defines the tool's resource as 'the money supply' and enumerates specific components (entered deposits vs test mint, withdrawals, burned stakes, fee pool, recirculation, velocity). It is clear and distinct from siblings like wallet_balance or hub_stats, but it lacks a verb such as 'retrieve' or 'view', so it is a noun-phrase definition rather than a full verb+resource statement.

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 phrase 'Free and unsigned' gives a credential-related usage condition, implying it can be called without authentication, and 'every number is derivable from entries participants already generate' suggests it is a transparent public summary. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over related tools like hub_stats or wallet_statement, leaving the selection logic implicit.

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