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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool outputs facts and flags only, never advice, and discloses rate limits and paid access. This gives the agent a solid understanding of the tool's non-advisory, read-oriented nature and its call constraints, though it does not explain the exact output structure or failure 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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to output flags, behavioral restrictions, and access limits. The first sentence is slightly convoluted with multiple embedded clauses, but every sentence adds distinct, useful information and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is analyzed, what flags are returned, the advisory boundary, and the access/pricing model. It could be more complete by explaining the meaning of each flag or the exact response format, but the essential information needed to select and invoke the tool is present.

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 already documents the single 'asset' parameter fully, including an example and accepted forms (symbol or CoinGecko id), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further parameter-level guidance beyond the peg-analysis context, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 resource (stablecoin $1 peg) and its analytical purpose: determining whether the peg is a hard anchor or soft peg and whether it is currently dislocated. It also names the concrete output flags (SOFT_PEG, BROKEN_HISTORY, DISLOCATION), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like chain, pool, or launch.

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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs factual stablecoin peg analysis rather than advice. It also adds an explicit exclusion ('never advice') and operational constraints (rate limits and pricing), but it does not compare this tool against sibling alternatives or state when another tool 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.