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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns 'chain breakdown', which gives some output shape context, but does not disclose behaviors like whether all chains are guaranteed, pagination, or error cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two succinct sentences plus a compact Args block. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No filler or 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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description gives enough context: what data is returned (supply with chain breakdown) and the required parameter. Since there is no output schema, the chain breakdown mention helps the agent anticipate the response shape. Missing details like example output or explicit differentiation from other stablecoin tools, but these are not critical.

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 description explains the symbol parameter as 'Stablecoin ticker, e.g. USDT, USDC' and explicitly marks it required, adding meaning beyond the schema which only has a default empty string. However, the schema lists no required parameters, so the 'required' note conflicts with the schema definition, slightly reducing clarity.

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 'Get the latest supply data for a specific stablecoin with chain breakdown', which includes a specific verb (get), resource (latest supply data), and scope (specific stablecoin, chain breakdown). This distinguishes it from siblings like orbuc_stablecoin_latest (likely all stablecoins) and orbuc_stablecoin_aggregate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'for a specific stablecoin', which implies a per-coin scope but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No 'when not to use' or references to sibling tools.

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