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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful data-scope context by listing the metrics, but it does not disclose freshness, data sources, or output shape beyond the enumerated fields.

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?

It is a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the relevant metrics. Every element earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool, the description combined with annotations gives enough to invoke it correctly. It enumerates the returned data dimensions even though no output schema exists, though it could further clarify freshness or coverage limitations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not create any parameter ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource (stablecoins on Cardano) and the specific data fields returned: supply, USD price, peg deviation, issuer, and mechanism. It names example assets, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from broader sibling tools such as get_token_prices or get_market_overview.

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 intended use is implied by the resource description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_token_prices, get_market_overview, or get_defi_tvl. An agent can infer it is for stablecoin-specific metrics, but any exclusions or routing rules are absent.

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