get_stablecoins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It transparently lists the output fields and the ranking order (by circulating supply), making clear this is a read-only data query. It does not mention caveats like rate limits or update frequency, but it is sufficiently transparent for a simple data retrieval 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and ranking, the second lists returned fields and use cases. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the data returned, the ordering, and practical use cases. The schema covers the limit param, and the sibling tools are distinct enough that context is clear.

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 'limit' is fully documented in the schema (with default and description), so the description does not need to add param details. The description does not mention 'limit', but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool gets stablecoin market data ranked by circulating supply, and lists specific returned fields (symbol, peg type, market cap, price, chain count). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_bridges or get_yields, which focus on other DeFi metrics.

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 use cases ('comparing stablecoin adoption' and 'identifying multi-chain stablecoins'), giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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