list_stablecoins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals ranking criteria and data sources but lacks details on operational traits like data freshness, caching, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is partially transparent but leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and ranking criteria. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and ordering. However, it lacks details on the output structure, whether it includes all stablecoins or just top N, and any filtering options. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has one parameter (limit) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 lists ranked stablecoins with specific ranking criteria (TVL, peg stability, audit status, chain coverage) and data sources (DefiLlama + BCA risk scoring). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_currencies by focusing on stablecoins and risk scoring.

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 obtaining ranked stablecoin data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on context or alternatives is given.

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