The intrinsic aspect of "Aggrey" beads (whichever version of the name one wants to use) is that they are dichroic, turning from corn-flower blue to translucent green or yellow in transmitted light.
Some of the candidates for being such beads are corded—but many, including the earliest beads (that I believe are the original kori beads) have smooth surfaces. When striped, these opaque red stripes are or can be very slightly raised.
The color of your bead is rather translucent teal—and while there are certainly many many plain drawn (and other) blue beads that might be confused with Aggrey beads, that have different tones of blue—one way to remove them from consideration would be that their color is wrong.
Unless you say otherwise, I would presume the glass is not dichroic.
Your inquiry might be accurate as to the intents of the beadmaker. Who can say yes or no? But if it were that, it would not be a compelling simulation.
If one reads the copious literature related to "aggrey beads"—beginning with the first mention of "kori" beads in the 16th C., one will find a great deal of speculation—much of which is nonsensical, or a dead-end. The "coral" story is certainly one such suggestion.
In post-Renaissance times, in several European languages, the words "pearl" and "coral" (in the context of glass beads) indicated, respectively, "a small bead," and "a large bead." Taking these names literally was a mistake made by quite a few writers.
However, all this was basically explained by van der Sleen, Peter Francis, and myself, decades ago.
The story of "kori" beads has a happy ending—because Kirk Stanfield and I collaoirated to "solve the problem"—which we did. Unfortunately, our exposition was refused publication. Our collaboration ended when Kirk refused to alter our paper—and I suggested we each write our own expositions—whereupon Kirk then published it online under the pseudonym "Kwesi Amanfrafo."
All of this is old history now.