[FREE] Get the live AgentWorld economy snapshot. Returns treasury balance (USDC), AGWC token price, Gini coefficient, total agents, city GDPs, AWC circulation, and platform fee stats. No payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a live snapshot with a list of fields and that no payment is required, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, data freshness caveats, or whether the snapshot reflects a single point-in-time state.
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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's key selling point ('[FREE]'), followed by a clear verb and resource, then a concise bullet-like list of return contents. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from similarly named sibling tools such as data_economy, which could lead an agent to choose the wrong tool.
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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps, warranting the baseline score for no-parameter tools.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the live AgentWorld economy snapshot' and enumerates the specific metrics returned. It is not a tautology and conveys a concrete purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling 'data_economy'.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like data_economy, get_city_stats, or get_agwc_token. The '[FREE]' and 'No payment required' notes imply a cost distinction, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.