defi_get_stablecoin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. It indicates the tool returns 'detailed data' including 'historical market cap', giving some sense of output. However, it does not disclose any response structure, prerequisites, or potential failure modes, which is a moderate gap for a read 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a useful data example. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but does not fully list what 'detailed data' includes beyond historical market cap. It could better explain the return value scope to help the agent anticipate output, especially since no output schema exists. The description is clear but leaves some context gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with the parameter description already stating 'Stablecoin ID from defi_get_stablecoins'. The tool description only says 'specific stablecoin', which provides no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states the verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'detailed data for a specific stablecoin' and mentions a key included data point 'historical market cap'. The singular 'stablecoin' distinguishes it from the sibling 'defi_get_stablecoins' which lists all stablecoins, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the parameter description for 'stablecoinId' says 'Stablecoin ID from defi_get_stablecoins', which implies that users should first call the list tool to obtain an ID. This is an implied usage workflow, not an explicit exclusion or alternative comparison.

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