Retrieve point-in-time burn tax rate and raw Luna supply to accumulate public time-series data for burn economics analysis.
Point-in-time burn economics: burn_tax_rate + uluna supply (raw base-unit string — BigInt in consumers, supply exceeds 2^53). The ICP canister accumulates these into a public time series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the supply value is a raw base-unit string exceeding 2^53 (BigInt), and that the canister accumulates snapshots into a public time series. It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but the context implies it, and the large-number handling is a critical behavioral detail.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes necessary technical caveats (BigInt) without fluff. Every clause adds value.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the returned data, its type, and the accumulation behavior. It lacks a note on authentication or exact output format, but these are minor given the simplicity.
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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object (100% coverage), so there is nothing to add. Per baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate for no-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 states a specific verb (get a snapshot) and resource (burn economics: burn_tax_rate and uluna supply), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tax_params, but the content is distinct enough that an agent can infer its role.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states it is a point-in-time snapshot, but does not mention when it should be preferred over tax_params or other economic data tools, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.