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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioural burden and handles it excellently. It discloses that net supply is withheld as null with net_status='partial' unless every leg is answered, explains the false-contraction risk, and notes zero liquidations are paired with a live pool-log count to distinguish calm from dead feed. Auth and provenance are also stated.

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 dense but efficient: purpose, metric meanings, data provenance, honesty rule, dead-feed disambiguation, and auth are all front-loaded and decision-useful. Every sentence contributes; no redundant 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 two-param tool with no required parameters, the description is largely complete: it covers what data is returned, why it is reliable, important null edge cases, auth, and the intended interpretation. It does not describe exact output shape or parameter behavior, but schema defaults and enum make invocation viable.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it never mentions hours or asset_class beyond the domain context. The agent must rely entirely on schema defaults and the enum. The description adds no meaning to the parameters themselves.

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 opens with an explicit directive, 'Call this for the numbers that cannot be spun,' and names the exact resources: stablecoin issuance and lending liquidations read off-chain. It clearly identifies this as an on-chain flows tool, distinguishing it from crypto price, derivatves, or sentiment siblings.

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?

It states when to use it: for dry-powder proxies via net stablecoin supply and for deleveraging/stress via liquidations. It also gives a verification use case for headlines and says 'DATA context, not a score,' providing a useful boundary. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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