get_v1_kaspa_derivatives_supply_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds context that the data is informational, not investment advice, costs $0.03, and captures the halving schedule. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or any side effects. The transparency is moderate.

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 concise, with a few sentences covering data, use case, disclaimer, and cost. It is front-loaded but could be more structured. Every sentence adds value, though the disclaimer and pricing could be placed after the core description.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description should fully describe what the tool returns. It lists three data points (supply, emission rate, percent-mined) and mentions halving schedule. However, it lacks information on time range or granularity (e.g., daily, hourly), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter information. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline 4 applies for zero-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 clearly states the tool provides 'Kaspa circulating supply over time + emission rate + percent-mined' and references the geometric halving schedule. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Kaspa supply/emission, with many siblings for other cryptocurrencies or different Kaspa metrics.

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 implies usage for 'tokenomics tracking and supply-emission models' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Given no direct alternative among siblings, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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