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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's additional value is modest. It explains the 'days' parameter meaning but does not disclose output format, default behavior, or chain list. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main behavior, and includes exactly one parameter definition. Every word earns its place with zero fluff.

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?

Given one simple optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter adequately. It could mention the default behavior when 'days' is omitted (e.g., all history), but this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by defining 'days' as 'Number of days of history (optional)', which provides meaning beyond the raw integer/null type. The format and range are not specified, but for a simple optional parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'stablecoin supply distribution' and a clear scope 'across chains (Ethereum, Tron, Solana, etc.)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like orbuc_stablecoin_aggregate (overall aggregate) or orbuc_stablecoin_coin (single coin).

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 description implies usage: when you need a per-chain breakdown of stablecoin supply, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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