1s_total_supply_live

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains real-time nature and raw units, but does not disclose potential failures (e.g., non-totalSupply contract) or return format details. Adequate for a simple read, but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key verb and resource. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and basic behavioral hints. It mentions raw units and division, but could clarify return type (big integer). Still fairly complete for its scope.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds context about the RPC call but no additional semantics beyond schema. 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 clearly states the tool gets total supply via totalSupply() RPC call for ERC20 or ERC721 tokens. It specifies the resource (total supply) and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on balances or transfers.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for real-time supply data,' providing clear context. While it doesn't list when not to use or alternatives, the sibling list contains no other total supply tools, so usage is implied and clear.

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