assetsKraken crypto exchange asset info: precision, status, alt-name, conversion factor for crypto assets (BTC, ETH, USDT, etc.) and fiat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | ||
| aclass | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "asset": "XBT"
+ },
+ {
+ "aclass": "currency",
+ "asset": "ETH"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "properties": {
+ "altname": {
+ "description": "Alternative asset name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "decimals": {
+ "description": "Number of decimal places",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "display_decimals": {
+ "description": "Display decimal places",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "description": "Asset information indexed by asset code",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the data content but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or return behavior. It does not contradict annotations.
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 that immediately establishes the tool's domain. It is concise with no redundant information.
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?
With a simple 2-parameter schema and an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose and content. It lacks usage guidance, but the tool itself is straightforward. The annotations and output schema cover the remaining context.
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 must compensate. It provides examples of asset values (BTC, ETH, USDT) and mentions fiat, but does not explain the 'aclass' parameter at all. The schema examples partially fill this gap, but the prose is insufficient for full parameter understanding.
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 identifies the tool as providing Kraken exchange asset information, listing specific data types (precision, status, alt-name, conversion factor) and asset types (crypto and fiat). This distinguishes it from siblings like asset_pairs, which focus on trading pairs.
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 use when asset metadata is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. There is no mention of asset_pairs for trading pair information, leaving the agent to infer context.
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.