sbtc_get_peg_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two main outputs and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about whether the peg ratio is on-chain or cached, how fresh it is, or whether any auth/network config (e.g. Stacks API key) is required. For a zero-parameter read this is acceptable but thin.

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 substantive content is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The trailing promotional tip is the only sentence that does not help an agent invoke this tool, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape; it names total supply and peg ratio, which covers the essentials for a simple info getter. The word 'including' signals more fields exist but leaves them unspecified.

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 takes no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered query of the peg state with nothing to specify.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get sBTC peg information') and names the two headline values returned: total supply and peg ratio. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as sbtc_get_balance or sbtc_get_deposit_info, so an agent must infer the split, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus sbtc_get_balance, sbtc_get_deposit_info, or styx_price. The second sentence ('Tip: call earning_opportunities...') is a cross-sell pointing at an unrelated tool rather than a condition that selects this one.

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