arc72_total_supply

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the method name. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, what the return value is, whether it can revert, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent without critical safety and outcome information.

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 extremely concise to the point of under-specification. It is a single fragment that adds no information beyond the tool name, so it fails to earn its place as a meaningful description.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what totalSupply() returns (e.g., an integer total supply). Without this, the description is incomplete for an agent making decisions about the invocation or handling the result. The simple parameter set is handled well by the schema, but the overall description lacks essential context.

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 input schema already describes both network and appId comprehensively (including an enum for network and a description for appId). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'ARC-72 totalSupply().' names the standard method but doesn't explicitly state what the tool does beyond implying it calls the totalSupply function on an ARC-72 contract. It distinguishes from sibling ARC-72 tools by name but lacks a clear verb and resource description, making it minimally understandable for those familiar with ARC-72.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of other ARC-72 read tools like arc72_balance_of or arc72_owner_of, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or context for invoking totalSupply.

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