tokenomics_metrics

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It indicates live read-only data but lacks details on caching, rate limits, or what 'live' means (e.g., real-time vs. recent). Adequate for a simple read tool but not thorough.

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 concise sentences with key information front-loaded. No wasted words. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the data it provides.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient for a basic data retrieval tool. However, it does not specify the output format or whether it returns historical data, which could help agents compare with sibling tools like economy_rules.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by listing the returned metrics but does not explain their units or definitions beyond the names. Baseline score applies.

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 it provides live on-chain tokenomics data and lists specific metrics (MfT supply, POOP burn ratio, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mft_flywheel and mft_price by focusing on a set of numeric values, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for tokenomics data but doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites. For a tool with 0 parameters and many siblings, more context would help.

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