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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It reveals the topic (minting/burning, net flow) but says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what data is returned, or any limitations or side effects. This is insufficient for a data query tool.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. While there is no waste, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity—key details like the verb and object are missing.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., values, time series, units) and in what context to use it. The current description is too vague to prepare an agent for invoking the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (symbol), so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema; it does not clarify how symbol relates to the output or any expected format or constraints.

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 (supply minting/burning, net flow) but lacks a clear verb like 'fetch' or 'list.' The meaning is inferable but ambiguous—does it return current values, historical series, or aggregations? It partially distinguishes from siblings by focusing on supply dynamics, but not definitively.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as peg_status or redemption_data. The description does not mention excluded cases, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent without decision support.

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