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

The description discloses that the data comes from on-chain reads plus a live block sample, explicitly notes that the burn rate is an estimate, and specifies a null-not-zero failure policy for failed reads. This meaningfully extends the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by explaining data provenance and error behavior.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then gives a dense but informative metric list followed by two concise clarifying sentences. It is slightly list-heavy, but every element adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers scope, data sources, estimation behavior, and null handling. An agent has everything it needs to decide when to call it and how to interpret results.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema fully documents this, so the description has no parameter details to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing left undocumented.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource, Flare's monetary metrics, followed by a detailed list of included metrics. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_defi_tvl or get_network_status, which cover different domains.

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 provides clear context for when the tool applies (supply, staking, inflation, burn queries) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or list exclusions. Usage is implied through the specific metric list rather than explicitly guided.

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