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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the topic ('supply and risk') without explaining what the tool does (e.g., returns a report, list, or metrics), whether it's read-only, or any side effects. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about expected 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 one short sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. It is front-loaded with the key topic and includes example tokens, all in a compact 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand what data will be returned. 'Supply and risk' is vague; it doesn't specify the structure of results, whether it's a list or aggregate, or what metrics define 'risk.' The complexity is low (no params), but the missing output details leave a significant 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description need not add parameter details; there are none to document.

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 identifies the tool's focus: stablecoin supply and risk on Solana, mentioning specific tokens. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sol_token_risk (general token risk) and sol_protocol_health (protocol-level health).

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 stablecoin-specific analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, leaving usage to inference.

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