get_token_supplies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys read-only access and specifies the chain and token scope, but it does not state whether the block is latest, how failures are surfaced, or what the return shape looks like. For a zero-parameter read this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key semantic caveat. No wasted words.

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 a zero-parameter read with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what is read, on which chain, for which tokens, and what the values do not represent. The only mild gap is that 'at one block' is not further specified, but with no block parameter available there is little more the description could clarify.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description wisely does not invent parameter guidance and instead clarifies the data scope.

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 gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: read Ethereum mainnet iUSD and siUSD ERC-20 total supplies at one block. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling farm and docs tools, which cover entirely different resources.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as a read for token supplies and warns that supplies are not protocol TVL, which prevents a common misuse. It does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond that caveat, but the sibling tools are far enough apart that no direct alternative is needed.

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