Retrieve ERC-20 total supply and burned token amounts, including burn percentage of supply, by token address. Defaults to PONS token for quick access.
ERC-20 totalSupply and burned amounts (balances of 0x…dEaD and 0x0…0) with burn % of supply. Defaults to the PONS token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenAddress | No | Token address (default: PONS token) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does add behavioral detail by explaining how burned amounts are derived (balances at 0x...dEaD and 0x0...0) and that a burn percentage is computed. However, it never explicitly states the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it cover edge cases or response shape.
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 compact sentences with the core purpose and burn computation front-loaded, followed by the default-token note. There is no wasted wording, though the second sentence is a bit terse.
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 single optional-parameter read with no output schema, the description communicates what is calculated. Still, it lacks detail on the return format (e.g., human-readable vs raw units) and doesn't explain when the default is used vs. when an explicit address is required, so an agent still has some ambiguity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; tokenAddress's description already says 'default: PONS token', and the tool description merely repeats that default. No additional parameter semantics are added, so the schema-covered baseline 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 states a specific operation: calculating ERC-20 total supply and burned amounts derived from the zero/dead addresses, plus burn percentage. It also identifies the resource (PONS token by default). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like pons_get_token or pons_protocol_overview, but the semantics are clear enough.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this tool instead of a sibling (e.g., pons_get_token), nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual conditions. An agent must infer when this tool is relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.