depeg_monitor

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It details the monitoring behavior, output (story label and anomaly score), polling design, and cost ($0.01 on Base mainnet). However, it lacks information on required permissions, rate limits, or side effects (though likely safe).

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 efficient with 5 sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, value proposition, polling frequency, output format, and cost. No redundant or filler content.

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 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, monitored assets, output format, and operational details (polling, cost). It does not cover error handling or latency but is sufficient for typical use.

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 single parameter (chain) has 100% schema coverage with enum and description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning cost on Base mainnet which could relate to chain but not directly.

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 it is a 'real-time stablecoin depeg detector' monitoring specific stablecoins (USDC, USDT, DAI) and detecting deviations from peg, spread, and volume spikes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like address_scan or defi_scan which have different focus.

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?

While the description implies usage for stablecoin depeg monitoring and mentions 'Designed for 1-minute polling,' it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling list is provided but no guidance on choosing this tool over others.

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