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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds value with 'no key' auth note and the notable data-integrity trait 'unknown inputs are named, never zero'. It also frames scope ('a measure of supply, not a forecast'), which prevents misuse. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and inputs before enumerating output fields. The trailing attribution and 'not financial advice' lines are non-essential but short; overall efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned row fields (status, dilution_12m_pct, next_unlock, etc.) and the input-honesty contract, so an agent knows what comes back and how to read it. Sufficient for a read-only batch 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the items shape and gem_screener meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g. chain names, symbol casing).

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 ('Many tokens' supply in one call') and scopes it precisely against the batch/single distinction implied by sibling supply_analyzer_token. The two input modes (items vs gem_screener) are named, so an agent can distinguish its behavior without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the two modes of use ('items up to 300' vs 'gem_screener=true for every Gem Screener coin'), which gives clear context on when each path applies. It does not explicitly name supply_analyzer_token as the single-token alternative, so the when-not guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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