On-chain supply of KTA, USDC, EURC and cbBTC. Token amounts, not prices. Free.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_supply"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two things not in structured data: the return is token quantities rather than prices, and the call is free (no cost/quota concern). With no output schema, those are meaningful contributions; missing is any note on formatting or scope (total vs circulating supply).
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and the token list, and every clause carries information. It is slightly telegraphic — 'Free.' and 'Token amounts, not prices.' are sentence fragments that read as notes rather than a definition — which keeps it from a 5.
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 input parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place return semantics can live, and it only says 'amounts.' It omits decimals/units, chain scope, whether supply is total or circulating, and the shape of the response. Adequate to pick the tool, thin for interpreting results.
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. Baseline of 4 applies; the enumeration of tokens is a bonus that tells the agent the call is not scoped by an argument.
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 (on-chain supply) and enumerates the exact tokens covered (KTA, USDC, EURC, cbBTC), so an agent knows precisely what data comes back. 'Token amounts, not prices' carves out a boundary against the get_price sibling. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 'not prices' clause implies the use case (quantity of tokens outstanding rather than valuation) and implicitly routes valuation questions to get_price, but the tool is never named as an alternative and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. Usage is inferable, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.