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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond saying it returns supply information. It does not clarify snapshot behavior, freshness, or why idempotentHint is false, so it adds little context beyond the structured safety hints.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by output-oriented detail. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 output schema, the description usefully explains that the response covers total supply across denominations and circulating supply for RUNE and other tokens. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only query, though the distinction between total and circulating supply could be sharper.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool whose schema is complete by omission.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns total token supply, including all coin denominations, and mentions circulating supply for RUNE and other tokens. This is clear enough to distinguish it from balance or holder queries, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cosmos_balances or get_holders. Usage is only implied by the stated return content, with no exclusions or routing guidance.

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