defillama_get_stablecoins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'List all stablecoins' implies a read-only, non-destructive action, which is safe. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, data format, or rate limits, which could be relevant for a full list endpoint.

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 clear, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 trivial zero-parameter list tool, the description provides adequate completeness. It states what is returned (a list of stablecoins) and the source (DefiLlama). Since there is no output schema, it could specify fields, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% (vacuously). Per the guideline, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain beyond the empty parameter list.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all stablecoins'), clearly stating the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like defillama_get_stablecoin_data, but the distinction is reasonably clear from the names and description.

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 vs alternatives. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or complementary tools.

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