burn_tracker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses caching behavior ('Cached ~5min', 'no per-request AI cost'), subscription gating, and source aggregation across Etherscan, Blockchair, and Solana RPC. It doesn't specify output structure or rate limits, so 4 rather than 5.

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 opening line repeats itself: it first lists events/history/sources, then restates the same content with parenthetical detail, and the final two cache notes could be merged. Front-loaded but redundantly 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?

For a zero-parameter cache-backed data tool, it covers purpose, sources, data freshness/caching, preview limits, and subscription requirement. Absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description naming the returned event/history concepts, though exact fields are still unspecified.

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 has zero properties, so there are no parameters needing explanation; the 100% schema coverage baseline combined with 0 params supports a 4.

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 action and resource: 'Get token burn events and 14-day burn history' for ETH, SOL, and BNB, naming data sources. This makes it clearly distinct from the other data/history siblings, even though no sibling is explicitly contrasted.

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?

Provides practical context for invoking it: free preview is limited to top 3 events, full list requires Weekly Alpha subscription, and responses are cached. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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