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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only mentions the ranking order (by risk score) but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, how pagination works, what the response structure looks like, or any rate-limiting behavior. This is minimal and under-specified.

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 phrase with no filler words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to its meaning, making it exemplary in terms of spatial economy.

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 output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the returned data looks like and how the ranking is structured. It does not. The tool is simple, but the description is too thin to give an agent enough context to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 one parameter 'limit' with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain it at all. The description fails to add any meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess its purpose and effect.

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 the resource (stablecoins) and the purpose (ranked by risk score), which clearly indicates the tool returns a ranking. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', the noun phrase is informative and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as peg_status or supply_flow.

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 for obtaining a risk-based ranking but gives no guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like 'compare' or 'risk_assessment'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues are provided.

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