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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses important behavior: deterministic, score-blind, and no meter numbers move regardless of amount. It also calls the ledger 'free,' adding useful cost-related context, though auth and rate-limit behavior are not mentioned.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the resource before explaining views and scope. The prose is slightly literary and uses jargon like 'score-blind' and wire('tape'), but each sentence contributes relevant information.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context about the two views and behavior to call it correctly. It could be more complete by explicitly mapping `what` to supply/flux and explaining omitted-argument behavior, but the core is present.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It defines supply as minted/burned/circulating per coin and flux as the sinks-vs-sources gauge, effectively explaining the likely values of the `what` parameter, though it does not explicitly say `what` accepts these values or note the default.

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 makes clear this is the game-coin ledger and explains the two data views, supply and flux. It does not explicitly name a read verb or distinguish itself from the read_ledger sibling, but the resource and contents are 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?

It gives one useful exclusion: platform reserve is read with wire('tape'), not here. However, it does not positively say when to choose spoils over the many other read-oriented siblings, leaving selection largely implied.

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