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 of behavioral transparency. It only lists three data categories and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool, this is a notable gap, though it does hint at the return content.

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 short, consisting of a noun phrase with three items. It is concise and non-redundant, but it lacks a proper sentence structure and reads more like a keyword list. It could be improved by adding a verb and context, so it is moderately concise but under-specified.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return categories (custody model, SIFI status, jurisdiction). It does not elaborate on response formatting, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity. The absence of output schema is compensated by the explicit field list.

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 clear description of the symbol parameter ('Stablecoin symbol e.g. USDC, USDT'). The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter but does not need to, as the schema already defines it well. 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 lists specific data categories (custody model, SIFI status, jurisdiction) which clearly indicate the tool provides these stablecoin-related attributes. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the resource is evident. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on custody and regulatory 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like risk_assessment or holder_data. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is passing a symbol, which is already explicit in the schema.

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