List Assets
list_assetsList all available swap assets and their details including ticker, network, direction, decimals, minimum amounts, and current USD prices.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
list_assetsList all available swap assets and their details including ticker, network, direction, decimals, minimum amounts, and current USD prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (ticker, network, etc.), though it could mention whether the list is exhaustive or if there are pagination considerations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase adds value, listing the key output fields.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return details. However, it could mention that no input is required and briefly note error handling or that the list is a flat collection.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description need not add parameter details, and the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output.
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 verb 'List' and resource 'all available swap assets', enumerating specific details (ticker, network, direction, decimals, minimum amounts, USD prices), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quotes or start_swap.
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 usage for retrieving a list of assets but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_quotes or start_swap, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes: status checking, quotes, asset listing, swap initiation. The two quote tools (get_native_quotes and get_quotes) differ in input units, which is clarified in descriptions but could still cause minor confusion for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_status, get_native_quotes, get_quotes, list_assets, start_dca_swap, start_swap).
With 6 tools covering quotes, asset info, swap initiation, and status checks, the count is well-scoped for a swap service without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the core swap lifecycle: get quotes, list assets, start swaps (including DCA), and check status. Missing potential operations like cancel or list past swaps, but these are not essential for the primary use case.