stablecoin_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does substantial work: it discloses cold-start days are omitted, data is recorded once from the live DefiLlama cycle, results are cached 5 minutes, and defines the sign conventions for totalFlow24h. The only notable transparency flaw is the inconsistent max window (180 in prose vs. 90 in the schema).

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 and information-dense, covering purpose, alternative, parameter behavior, field semantics, and cache behavior in one paragraph. It contains minor redundancy, such as restating daily net-flow and the days window, but overall every major aspect earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter interface and no output schema, the description does a thorough job of explaining return semantics: totalFlow24h, totalNow, and signal. It is nearly complete, but the contradictory max-days information makes the invocation contract unreliable.

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?

Although the single parameter is fully covered by the schema and the description adds usage guidance like '?days=30', the description repeatedly claims a maximum of 180 days while the input schema enforces a maximum of 90. This contradiction is directly actionable and could cause an agent to request an invalid window.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get daily historical stablecoin supply changes'. It clearly communicates scope (net inflow/outflow per day, total supply over N days) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling stablecoin_flows by noting that tool is for the current snapshot.

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?

It gives a concrete routing cue: 'use stablecoin_flows for the current snapshot', which helps an agent choose between the two most related sibling tools. It also explains the days window and defaults, though it does not discuss exclusions or alternatives beyond stablecoin_flows.

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