Get the current total supply of AVAX on a Subnet/L1
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | Avalanche network to query (default: mainnet) | |
| subnetID | No | The Subnet ID to query current supply for (default: Primary Network) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / subnetID / descriptionPrevious value: -"The subnet ID to query current supply for (default: Primary Network)"New value: +"The Subnet ID to query current supply for (default: Primary Network)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the purpose, omitting whether it is read-only, potential side effects, or any error conditions. It lacks transparency about the operation's nature and response.
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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly expanded to include output details.
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 there is no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns. It also does not describe edge cases or behavior when parameters are omitted. For a data-returning tool, this is incomplete.
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 schema already documents parameters. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema; it simply reiterates the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('current total supply of AVAX on a Subnet/L1'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like platform_get_total_stake or platform_get_balance.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases beyond a basic 'get' operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.