Get asset supply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return encoding ('as plain text'), which is genuinely useful beyond structured fields, but says nothing about read-only safety, error behavior for unknown assets, rate limits, or numeric precision of the returned 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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical use-case is the only arguably expendable clause, keeping it just below 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?

For a two-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action, input formats, and output shape ('plain text'), but leaves failure modes and the exact response format (precision, rounding) unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented at the field level. The description's note about accepted identifier formats (native XLM, CODE-ISSUER) merely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return total issued supply for an asset'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_asset_holders and get_asset_rating. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, so it stops short of 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?

'Useful for aggregators and dashboards' hints at the consumption context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance, no mention of exclusions, and no statement of prerequisites for an asset identifier that may not exist.

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