verify_supply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds value by disclosing that computation is based on a specific schedule, that GetInfo may be inaccurate on older builds, and that the tool returns a match status. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, usage guidelines, input requirements, and output format. It is front-loaded but slightly verbose in parts (e.g., repeating 'prefer' statements). Overall it earns its length.

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 complexity (composite offline recompute) and lack of output schema, the description covers input, output fields, usage context, and limitations. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 sole parameter 'height' is fully described in both the schema (100% coverage) and the description, which explains its optionality, default behavior, and requirement when daemon is unreachable. The description adds context beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Composite: recompute DERO total supply offline via CalcSupply' and mentions optional cross-check against GetInfo. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like dero_get_info by being an independent computation tool.

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 explicit when-to-call scenarios: when user asks about total supply, matching schedule, or wants independent recompute. It also advises preferring this over GetInfo alone and citing returned related_docs.

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