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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a small amount of context by attributing the data to Peerlytics, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or any special behavior.

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 a single concise sentence, 'List supported currencies from Peerlytics.' It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only listing tool with annotations covering side effects, this description is nearly sufficient. It could be improved by mentioning the expected response shape, especially since no output schema is provided, but the core invocation context is clear.

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 only parameter is a generic optional 'params' object with schema description coverage of 100%, so the schema already explains it. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given high schema coverage and zero required parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('supported currencies'), and a source ('Peerlytics'), so an agent can understand the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like peer_config_currencies, but the core function is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as peer_config_currencies or peer_market_meta_platforms. The description implies basic usage for listing currencies but provides no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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