List assets

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose what is returned (stats + composite rating) and that rating is technical, not an investment recommendation. It omits anything about pagination limits beyond the schema, rate limits, or permissions, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the key capability (search fields, sorting, rating default) is stated early. Mild redundancy in re-listing sort options that the schema already enumerates.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes the return content (on-chain stats, composite rating) and the search dimensions. Paging behavior is only covered by the schema's cursor field, a minor gap.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description restates the sort fields and confirms default sorting, and adds a bit on what 'rating' means, but contributes little beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('List Stellar assets') plus what the result carries (on-chain stats and StellarExpert composite rating). It implicitly distinguishes itself from single-asset siblings like get_asset_rating and list_asset_holders by being a broad listing, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use to find or rank assets' gives a clear usage context, and the sort/search sentence frames when ranking is appropriate. No explicit when-not or named sibling alternative, so it stops short of the top score.

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