get_stablecoins

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 disclosure. It describes the output (largest stablecoins with peg type) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or if there are any side effects. For a simple listing operation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key resource ('Largest stablecoins') and appends the distinguishing attribute ('with peg type'), with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what data is returned (stablecoins ranked by supply, plus peg type categories) but does not detail the exact fields or response structure. The parameter's default and maximum are handled by the schema, which is acceptable, though a bit more detail would make it fully self-contained.

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 includes one parameter, 'limit,' with a complete description ('How many to return (default 15)'), providing full semantics. The tool description adds no additional detail about the parameter, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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 clearly states the tool returns 'Largest stablecoins by circulating supply,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also enumerates the peg type categories, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_chains_tvl or get_token_prices. This is not a tautology and fully conveys the tool's function.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or pre-conditions. The intended use case is only implied by the name and content—that it handles stablecoin data—so the usage context is indirectly communicated but lacks explicit direction.

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