getTotalSupply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires network access, has rate limits, returns cached data, or what happens if the token address is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't waste space on redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving token supply data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format. The high schema coverage helps, but overall completeness is limited for a tool that likely interacts with blockchain networks.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('token' and 'chainId') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain ERC20 token format or chain ID conventions), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Gets') and resource ('total supply of an ERC20 token'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'getBalance' or 'getBalanceOf', which also retrieve token-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might retrieve related token data (e.g., 'getBalance', 'getTokenInfo'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others.

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