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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the $5M/24h filter, the contract-level granularity, and that regulation items are included. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or how results are truncated for lower tiers, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 first clause is front-loaded with the core scope, but the sentence is a long run-on stringing together supply events and regulation items. The trailing tier note ('Pass, Builder, Scale or PRO') is somewhat useful but sits awkwardly and is not clearly framed.

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?

For a 1-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description adequately conveys what data is returned. However, it omits the meaning of the 'days' parameter and any sense of result volume or truncation, leaving gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 0%: the single 'days' parameter (integer, 1-90) has no description in the schema, and the description never mentions or explains it. The phrase 'the last days' hints at a time window but gives no mapping to the parameter or its 90-day cap, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a concrete resource (tokenised asset supply changes: mints/burns of stablecoins, treasuries, gold, plus regulation items) with a precise scope threshold ($5M per contract over 24h). An agent can tell it apart from get_stablecoin_net_mint or get_reg_radar, though it does not explicitly name those siblings. The concrete filtering criteria make the purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_tokenization_overview, get_stablecoin_net_mint, or get_reg_radar, all of which overlap on the same data. The only routing-style sentence ('Pass, Builder, Scale or PRO for the full list') is about subscription tier, not about when this tool is the right choice.

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