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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the call costs $0.003 in USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc and failed calls are not charged. It does not, however, say whether results are cached or how fresh the supply snapshot is, which matters for a live-supply metric.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and the pricing note is worth its space. The sibling-tool block is awkwardly phrased ('Related tools on this server, for a different need:') and the crypto_kaspa_block clause reads like a truncated copy-paste ('Detailed Kaspa block by 64-character hex hash: timestamp.'), which adds noise.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the definition covers what the tool returns, what it costs, and which siblings handle adjacent needs. The only real gap is freshness/latency of the supply figures, which an agent deciding between this and the history tool might care about.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The enumeration of returned metrics is a return-value hint rather than parameter meaning.

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 names the resource (Kaspa coin supply) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: circulating supply, max supply, percent mined, current block reward, and the scheduled chromatic halving date/next amount. This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from the other Kaspa tools without opening any 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?

It explicitly routes two related needs elsewhere: crypto_kaspa_metrics_history for hourly time series and summary statistics, and crypto_kaspa_block for a block by 64-character hex hash. That covers the main confusable siblings, but it never states a negative condition for this tool itself (e.g. when not to use it, or that it returns only a current snapshot).

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