stablecoin-watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (DeFiLlama public API), that no key is required, and that each call updates. It does not mention rate limits or potential delays, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the purpose and output, then sourcing and use cases. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists all key fields (price, deviation, status, supply, alert) and even defines depeg levels. Slight lack of detail on numerical formats, but overall sufficient for a monitoring tool.

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%, so the schema already explains the three parameters. The description adds minimal new information beyond the schema, mostly restating defaults and behavior. 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's function: a real-time depeg monitor for top USD stablecoins, listing specific coins and the exact data returned (price, deviation, status, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on stablecoin monitoring.

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 explicitly mentions use cases: DeFi risk management, collateral health checks, and pre-trade regime detection. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives, which is acceptable given its narrow focus.

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