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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it is historical data, implying read-only, but does not disclose any limitations (e.g., token support, data source, update frequency) or explain whether the entire 30-day history is returned in one response or paginated. The MICA Art. 35 reference adds regulatory context but no behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence with a period, followed by a regulatory reference. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition. For the amount of information conveyed, it is efficiently structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what the response looks like. It only states the time range ('30-day') but not the format, fields, or definition of peg deviation. Given the low complexity (one param), the description should at least clarify what data is returned, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description ('Token symbol'), and the baseline for high coverage is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about 'token_symbol' beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the schema's minimal description, but it does not need to per the rubric.

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 indicates the tool provides historical peg deviation data over a 30-day window, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'peg_deviation' (presumably current deviation). The phrase '30-day peg deviation history' is specific about the resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'peg_deviation' might be the complementary current-state tool, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without placing it in a workflow.

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