mft_flywheel

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only informational tool but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or requires no permissions. The behavioral impact is implicitly safe, but transparency could be enhanced by stating it is a knowledge query.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word serves a clear function with no fluff.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the tool does but does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., text summary). It is adequate for a simple informational tool but could be more specific.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no redundancy. A higher score is not warranted because there is no parameter information to add.

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 specifies a clear purpose: understanding the MfT tokenomics flywheel, specifically how game actions burn MfT supply. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tokenomics_metrics' by focusing on the conceptual flywheel mechanism rather than numerical 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 description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'why_mft' or 'tokenomics_metrics'. It merely states the function without contextual usage advice.

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