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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses the raw response size (2.1MB) and server-side compaction to symbol + deposit/withdraw fields, plus pricing and signer boundary details. This adds meaningful context about response handling and security, though it omits pagination or rate-limit specifics.

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 well-structured: the first sentence front-loads the core function and response compaction, followed by symbol examples. The second paragraph covers execution guidance (pricing, routing, signer boundary) which is relevant but somewhat tangential; overall, it is concise without fluff.

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 simple 1-param optional schema and an output schema that likely documents response fields, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, filter behavior, response size warning, and execution context. It does not explain return values (covered by output schema) and is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already describes the optional symbol parameter at 100% coverage, but the description enriches it with valid symbol examples (SOL_USDC, SOL_USDC_PERP, MU.US_USDC, etc.), helping agents form correct queries. It also clarifies the filter is exact-match, which the schema implies but does not state.

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 lists Backpack assets, a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling market-data tools by focusing on asset balances (deposits/withdrawals) and gives concrete symbol examples, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides clear context that this is a read/discovery tool for assets, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use. The optional symbol filter and compaction note imply usage for lightweight asset queries, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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