stablecoin_flows

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that data is a current snapshot, that values represent 24h net change with positive/negative semantics, that the source is DefiLlama, and that results are cached ~30 minutes. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently routes to alternatives. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each segment adds value and the use of dashes and endpoint references keeps it structured and scannable.

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 zero-parameter snapshot tool, this description is complete: it explains what is returned, the source, the refresh cadence, the interpretation of the numbers, and explicitly points to sibling tools for historical data. There is no output schema, so the description's coverage of the response semantics is sufficient.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed, and it clarifies the scope of data returned.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current stablecoin supply & 24h net flows'), and specific coins (USDT, USDC, DAI), and it explicitly contrasts itself with stablecoin_history. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from nearby siblings.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use this tool for the current snapshot, stablecoin_history for daily time-series, and stablecoin_monthly for long-term trends. It also tells the agent the exact alternative endpoints to call, so there is no inference required.

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