get_burn_trx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the time boundary ('since No. 54 Committee Proposal took effect') but does not detail the return format, data source, or any limitations. It provides some additional context but does not go beyond what annotations cover.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states what the tool does. No unnecessary wording or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description, schema, and annotations together provide sufficient context. The purpose is clear, safety hints are present, and network default is documented in the schema. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, but not critical for this straightforward query.

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 schema describes the only parameter ('network') with 'Network name. Defaults to mainnet.', giving 100% coverage. The description does not mention parameters but also does not need to, since the schema already provides the semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query the total amount of TRX burned from on-chain transaction fees since No. 54 Committee Proposal took effect.' This uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('total amount of TRX burned'), and uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools by its precise scope.

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 clear context: it is used to retrieve the cumulative TRX burn since a named committee proposal. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, the unique scope makes the use case obvious. This qualifies as 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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