Get asset rating

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the score is ledger-activity based (so it reflects on-chain behavior, not off-chain sentiment) and that it is not financial advice, but it says nothing about caching/staleness, rate limits, or what happens for an asset with no ledger activity.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched, followed by the derivation caveat. The parenthetical metric list is information-dense but slightly crammed; no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a 2-parameter read with no output schema, the enumeration of rating components effectively previews the return shape and the 'ledger-activity based' note frames the value. Remaining gaps (behavior for an asset with no activity, cross-network differences) are modest given the small surface area.

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 100%, including the CODE-ISSUER format example and the network enum default, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the metric list, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and a specific resource (StellarExpert composite technical rating for one asset), then enumerates the exact sub-metrics composing the rating. That enumeration makes it unmistakable against siblings like get_asset_supply, list_asset_holders, or get_directory_entry.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear it returns a pre-computed aggregate rating for a single asset, so an agent can infer it should call this instead of assembling raw metrics itself. However, it never names when to prefer a sibling (e.g. get_asset_supply for raw supply data) and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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