list_stablecoins

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions data sources (composite scoring), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 is front-loaded with the key ranking criteria and data sources. Every word adds value, with no filler 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?

Given the tool has a single parameter (no description), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify what data fields are returned, how to handle pagination, or the meaning of 'limit'. The agent lacks critical context for correct invocation.

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 and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning, default value, or allowed range, forcing the agent to guess.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool lists stablecoins ranked by TVL, peg stability, audit status, and chain coverage. It specifies data sources (DefiLlama + BCA risk scoring), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like list_yields or list_aggregators.

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 getting ranked stablecoin data, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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