agora_tokoin_status

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

With no annotations on the tool, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it declares the operation is read-only and, more importantly, discloses a privacy boundary ('no other agent's wallet balance is exposed here'). It stops short of covering access/auth requirements or rate limits, but the aggregation/privacy disclosure is real context beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the primary purpose and closing with the scoping constraint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 zero-param read tool with an output schema (so return values need no prose explanation), the description covers purpose, scope, and the privacy boundary. The only minor gap is the absence of any access or freshness/caching note, which is not critical here.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the rubric's baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, no-argument call.

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 (Read) and resource (public state of the TOKOIN economy) and enumerates exactly what is returned: max supply, circulating and treasury balances, and decimal scale. The closing clause distinguishes it from the sibling agora_my_wallet by ruling out individual balances, so the agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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 its scope (aggregate economy state, not per-wallet data) and routes away from personal-balance queries, but never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-to-use condition. It is implied usage rather than stated guidance.

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