Search the asset universe by symbol, name, or sector substring (case-insensitive).
Args:
query: Substring to match, e.g. "render", "depin", "gpu".
limit: Max results (default 20).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It mentions case-insensitivity and a default limit, but does not state read-only status, rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when no results match. It also omits any mention of pagination or output structure, leaving the agent with incomplete expectations.
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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose statement front-loaded and parameters listed clearly. Every sentence adds value, and the example values aid understanding without bloat.
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's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, it omits usage context (when to prefer this over siblings) and fails to note any side effects or limitations, making it slightly incomplete for a standalone 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 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains query as a substring to match with concrete examples ('render', 'depin', 'gpu'), and limit as max results with a default of 20. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could elaborate on the meaning of 'max results'.
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: searching the asset universe by symbol, name, or sector substring, with case-insensitivity noted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset (exact retrieval) and list_sectors (enumerating sectors), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_asset or list_sectors. It lacks any conditions, exclusions, or mentions of context where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.