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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states '30-day peg history' and does not disclose what data is returned (e.g., timestamps, price deviations, methodology), whether it is read-only, or any other behavioral traits. The agent must rely on the parameter schema and assumptions.

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 four words, but this is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. It does not waste words but also fails to provide necessary context, making it minimally acceptable.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what 'history' means (e.g., price data, deviation metrics), the time horizon beyond '30-day', or any expected output format. Given the availability of sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, with the 'symbol' description explicitly stating 'Stablecoin symbol e.g. USDC, USDT'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond this, so the 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 '30-day peg history' identifies the resource as historical peg data over a 30-day window, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like peg_status. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Get' or 'Retrieve') and is terse, making it somewhat vague about what exactly is returned.

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_status or risk_assessment. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare-and-contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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