riskoracle

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Only states 'comparison' without disclosing whether it is read-only, what data is returned, or any constraints (e.g., rate limits, required permissions). For a presumably aggregation tool, behavioral details are critical.

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?

Description is a single sentence, which is concise but omits essential details. It achieves brevity at the cost of completeness, missing parameter explanations and usage context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, how comparison results are structured, or any limitations. The tool appears part of a stablecoin suite but lacks necessary context for effective use.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. The description only mentions 'stablecoins' for the 'symbols' parameter but does not clarify format (ticker vs name vs address). The 'use_case' parameter with default 'settlement' lacks explanation of possible values and how it affects behavior.

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?

Description clearly states 'Head-to-head comparison of 2+ stablecoins', indicating a verb (compare), resource (stablecoins), and count (2+). However, it does not specify what aspects (e.g., price, risk, metrics) are compared, leaving some ambiguity. Distinguished from siblings like peg_history or risk_assessment by being a cross-metric comparison.

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 tool versus siblings. Sibling tools like peg_history, risk_assessment, and supply_flow have specific purposes, but the description does not indicate scenarios where 'compare' is appropriate or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only hints at data retrieval but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits.

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 too brief (two phrases) and sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It fails to convey necessary details for effective tool selection.

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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., distribution data, risk metrics). It is incomplete and leaves the agent unsure of the output.

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 100% for the symbol parameter, and the description adds no further meaning. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Cross-chain distribution, bridge risk' is vague and does not specify a clear action or resource. It could refer to multiple functions and does not distinguish from sibling tools like supply_flow or risk_assessment.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It fails to inform about tool behavior beyond the listed 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?

The description is extremely concise (4 words) but lacks structure and fails to convey key information. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of clarity and completeness.

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 the simple tool (one param, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, leaving the agent without full context.

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%, and the parameter 'symbol' is already well described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning, resulting in a baseline score.

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 lists data fields ('Custody model, SIFI status, jurisdiction') but lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It hints at the tool's purpose but is ambiguous, especially among sibling data tools.

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 tool versus alternatives. No mention of use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what data is provided, not mutability, data freshness, permissions, or side effects. The agent cannot infer if this tool is read-only, cached, or has rate limits.

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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with key terms. However, it lacks structure (e.g., sentence form) and feels incomplete. Still, it efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input but fails to describe the output format or structure. For a data retrieval tool, the lack of return value description makes it harder for the agent to use effectively.

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% with a single parameter 'symbol' described as 'Stablecoin symbol e.g. USDC, USDT'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not clarify the format or constraints of the parameter.

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 'Top holder distribution, whale concentration' clearly conveys that the tool provides data about the distribution of top holders and concentration of large holders. Though it lacks a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', the intent is unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'supply_flow' or 'risk_assessment' by focusing on holder concentration.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or conditions like when to choose 'custody_data' or 'risk_assessment'. This omission leaves the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the result is a ranking, but does not disclose whether it's a read-only operation (likely), the structure of the output, pagination behavior, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 very concise (4 words). While it gets the core idea across, it omits details that would improve clarity. It is not overly verbose, but the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 the simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about the risk score definition, sorting order, and how this differs from sibling tools like 'risk_assessment'. An agent may need more to use it correctly.

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%. The description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving its purpose to be inferred from the schema. The parameter is simple, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Stablecoins ranked by risk score' clearly indicates the tool returns a ranking of stablecoins. It distinguishes from siblings like 'risk_assessment' (which likely provides individual assessment) and 'compare' (which compares specific coins). However, it could be more specific about the top-N nature (implied by limit parameter).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'risk_assessment' for detailed analysis. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this tool performs read-only or destructive operations, authentication needs, or rate limits. It states only what the tool is, not its 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 extremely concise at two words, but at the cost of providing insufficient information for effective tool selection. It is not structured with any additional details.

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 the lack of parameters and output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how it interacts with other tools. It provides no such context, making it incomplete for an agent to understand its role.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed.

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 'Risk scoring methodology', which vaguely indicates the tool provides methodology for risk scoring, but lacks a specific verb or clear resource. It does not distinguish from the sibling 'risk_assessment' tool.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'risk_assessment'. The description gives no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, handles errors, or has rate limits. It only gives a one-line summary, failing the transparency burden.

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 extremely brief (a noun phrase) but under-specified. It does not earn its place because it lacks key information; true conciseness would include a clear verb and context without extra words.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify return values or format. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about what data the tool returns. The single parameter is well-documented, but overall completeness is low.

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 100% parameter description coverage for the single 'symbol' parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so a baseline of 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?

The description '30-day peg history' indicates the tool provides historical peg data over 30 days, but it lacks a verb and does not specify what exactly is returned (e.g., list, chart, table). It differentiates from 'peg_status' as historical, but the purpose remains vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool like 'peg_status' would be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or authentication needs. The minimal description only hints at output without detailing 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 extremely concise at one short sentence. While not wasteful, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose. It earns high marks for brevity but not perfect as it may be too terse.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It mentions 'deviation, stability' but not their types or structure. For a low-complexity tool with one parameter, more completeness is expected.

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 100% coverage for its single parameter, with a clear description in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Stablecoin symbol e.g. USDC, USDT', so a baseline score of 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?

The description 'Current peg status — deviation, stability' clearly indicates the tool's purpose: to retrieve the current peg status including deviation and stability metrics. It distinguishes from siblings like 'peg_history' which implies historical data. However, lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'peg_history' or 'risk_assessment'. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Server ping' without disclosing any behavioral traits like response format or side effects.

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 exceptionally concise at two words, with no wasted content. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 ping tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any mention of return values or expected behavior. Given no output schema, the description could be slightly more informative.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information; the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 'Server ping' clearly indicates a connectivity health check, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which are data-oriented.

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 provides no explicit usage guidance or alternatives, but the intended use for checking server connectivity is implied and straightforward.

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

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the listed outputs. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, or any side effects. The three words provide minimal transparency.

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 extremely brief (three words), but it is not effectively concise because it omits critical information like a verb and context. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete, helpful instruction. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what is returned (e.g., structure of track record, latency, limits). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. The description is insufficient for a tool with one parameter and no additional metadata.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'symbol' parameter ('Stablecoin symbol e.g. USDC, USDT'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No further elaboration is provided.

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 'Redemption track record, latency, limits' lists three aspects but lacks a verb to indicate the action (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve'). While the noun phrase hints at the resource, it does not clearly state what the tool does, making it vague. The name 'redemption_data' helps, but the description does not distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'supply_flow' or 'peg_status'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description fails to help the agent decide between 'redemption_data' and sibling tools like 'supply_flow' or 'holder_data'.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output categories and scale, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Some transparency is provided but incomplete.

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 extremely concise—one line—with no extraneous text. Every word contributes to the core purpose. However, it may be too brief at the expense of completeness.

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 the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks crucial details: what the signals are, how to interpret the output, parameter dependencies, and example usage. It is not sufficiently complete for a reliable agent invocation.

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% and the description adds no information about the three parameters (symbol, chain, use_case). The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 states it computes a full risk score using 7 signals on a 100-point scale with SAFE/CAUTION/AVOID labels. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools which are mainly data retrieval functions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like compare or supply_flow may be relevant but no comparisons are made.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'minting/burning' and 'net flow' but omits whether the tool returns aggregate data, time series, or directional flows, and doesn't clarify persistence or caching 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?

Extremely short but not well-structured; it's a fragment rather than a sentence, and although concise, it sacrifices clarity. Every word is present but the meaning is ambiguous.

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 the simple input but no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a single number, array, or time series). Context about stability, data range, or reliability is absent, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 100%; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Stablecoin symbol e.g. USDC, USDT'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already serves its purpose.

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 'Supply minting/burning, net flow' suggests the tool deals with supply changes, but lacks a clear verb or explicit statement of what it returns. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'holder_data' or 'redemption_data' only vaguely.

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 tool versus alternatives like 'peg_history' or 'risk_assessment'; no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'list', implying read-only, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what exactly constitutes 'supported'. This is insufficient 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?

Extremely concise (2 words). Front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness, e.g., noting the output format.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description is complete enough. Sibling tools do not render it insufficient, but additional context on what 'supported' means would improve completeness.

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 has no parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the tool lists all stablecoins, which is sufficient given no parameters to describe.

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 'List supported stablecoins' clearly states the verb (list) and the resource (supported stablecoins). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'peg_status' or 'holder_data' that might also involve stablecoins, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

Implied usage is present: use to obtain a list of stablecoins. But no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., for checking individual peg status vs. listing all tokens). No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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