Stablecoin peg monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a significant behavioral trait: the tool is paid (cost up to $0.01 USDC.e per call, paid automatically). However, it does not clarify what 'detects a depeg event' means in terms of output (e.g., boolean, threshold, time window) or return format, leaving important behavioral aspects unstated.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences conveying purpose and a clear pricing notice. It is front-loaded with the core function ('Peg status and market cap') and the key extra context (paid tool). No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what data is returned, but it does not. The agent is left wondering what 'peg status' looks like, whether it is a numeric value, a boolean, a list of stablecoins, or something else. The depeg detection mechanism is also vague (threshold, method). This is inadequate for a tool that presumably returns structured data.

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 'symbol' is fully described in the schema ('Optional symbol (USDC, USDT, DAI...).'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, such as default behavior when omitted, case sensitivity, or examples. It stays at the baseline level.

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 monitors stablecoin peg status and market cap, and specifically detects depeg events. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_price (which simply gives prices) or token_supply (which gives supply). The verb 'detects' and the resource 'stablecoin' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when checking stablecoin peg health or depeg risk), but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that token_price might be sufficient for simple price lookups. There is no comparative context with siblings.

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