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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose return format, whether 'tracked' implies a curated/whitelisted set, or ordering. 'List all' implies a read-only operation but this is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Ideal brevity for a simple listing tool.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the tool is simple enough that the description is largely adequate. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, an agent has gaps around return shape and how this differs from get_symbols or get_stablecoin_peg.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the optional query parameter. The description adds no information about the semantics of 'query' (e.g., substring match vs symbol prefix) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (tracked stablecoin symbols), distinguishing it from siblings like get_symbols and get_stablecoin_peg. The word 'tracked' adds useful scoping.

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 on when to use this versus get_symbols or get_stablecoin_peg. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the stablecoin-specific listing.

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