defillama_get_stablecoin_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects itself. It only states that it gets data, without mentioning return format, potential limitations, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, lacking substance beyond the basic action.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what data will be returned or how the parameter should be used, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable 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 schema has one required parameter 'asset' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description hints that the parameter identifies a specific stablecoin but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., symbol, address, or ID) or provide any additional semantic meaning.

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 identifies a specific stablecoin as the target resource, using a concrete verb ('Get'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'defillama_get_stablecoins' by emphasizing 'specific' versus the plural list. However, it lacks detail on what 'data' entails, so it is not as informative as it could be.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'defillama_get_stablecoins' or 'defillama_get_token_prices'. There is no context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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