get_total_supply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output type (single number) but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, data freshness, or how the 'raw' value is derived. For a simple getter, this is minimal disclosure.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the essential function. However, the second sentence ('Call this MCP tool...') is somewhat redundant with the first, adding little new information. Still, it remains compact and easy to parse.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and return type. However, it does not explain what 'raw' means in contrast to other supply metrics (e.g., circulating supply) or when to prefer it over sibling tools, which is relevant context given the many similar tools.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (there are none). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and its mention of 'single number' hints at the return type, which is sufficient in this context.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns 'Raw USDD total supply (single number)', specifying both the resource and output format. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_circulating_supply and get_usdd_supply, which likely return different supply metrics.

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 instruction 'Call this MCP tool for current raw supply stats' gives a direct use case, but it lacks any explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use this tool or why it is preferred over similar supply tools.

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