defi_get_stablecoins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the data returned but does not mention potential response size, pagination, ordering, data freshness, or any access/read-only implications. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but no explicit behavioral traits beyond the data scope are disclosed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific data categories. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, list-returning tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the output's content by naming three data categories. However, it does not specify response formatting, potential pagination, or limits, which could be relevant for a tool returning 'all' items. The low complexity makes this acceptable but not fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds context on what data will be returned, which is sufficient given the absence of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get list') and identifies the resource ('all stablecoins') with the data fields included ('market cap, chain distribution, and peg data'). It clearly distinguishes from the singular sibling 'defi_get_stablecoin' by stating 'all stablecoins', and from 'defi_get_stablecoin_chains' by including broader scope.

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 a use case (retrieving all stablecoins with detailed data) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'defi_get_stablecoin' for a single stablecoin or 'defi_get_stablecoin_chains' for chain-only data. The context is present but not explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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