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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses data sources (Etherscan, Blockchair, Solana RPC), caching behavior (~5min cache), and the subscription model (free preview vs. full list). It also mentions that events are on-chain and explorer-verifiable. It does not mention rate limits or authorization, but for a read-only cached tool, the disclosure is quite transparent. The description goes beyond the minimum by explaining the caching and preview limitations.

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 slightly verbose but packs useful information into a few sentences. It front-loads the purpose in the first clause and then adds details on sources, limitations, and caching. It could be more concise by avoiding repetition (e.g., 'Etherscan + Blockchair + Solana RPC' mentioned twice), but overall it is well-structured and readable.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain the return format thoroughly. It describes the output as 'recent on-chain token burn events (with explorer-verifiable tx) plus a 14-day daily burn-volume history,' which gives a high-level structure. However, it lacks specifics about the fields of each event (e.g., token, amount, timestamp, transaction hash). For a simple tool with no parameters, a bit more detail on the output format would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%. There are no parameters to document, and the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description provides context about what data is returned (events and history) without needing to explain 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 tool retrieves token burn events and 14-day burn history for ETH, SOL, and BNB from specified sources. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('burn events and history'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'airdrops' or 'whale_activity', so it loses a point for lacking explicit 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 includes usage context: a free preview of the top 3 events, full list requiring a subscription, and cached data with no per-request AI cost. This tells the agent when to use it (for burn data) and hints at limitations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whether to use this or 'trending' for other metrics). Guidance is present but not fully explicit compared to a 5.

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