get_tokenomics

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fills the gap by stating this is a public tool with no API key required, indicating it is a safe read operation. It does not disclose any side effects, but given its read-only nature, this is adequate.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with key information. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous content.

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 the tool's simple nature, the description is complete. It lists all the data points returned, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output without needing a structured schema.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the specific data returned (supply, distribution, mining details), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'TOLENO tokenomics', listing specific data points (total supply, distribution breakdown, mining mechanism). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_global_stats or get_project_info by focusing solely on tokenomics.

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 implies usage for retrieving tokenomics information and notes it is public with no API key required. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives among siblings, though the context of other tools indicates it is specialized for tokenomics data.

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