Asset Lookup

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the server resolves synonyms automatically, and the tool returns trade venues, collateral tokens, open interest per venue, and synonyms. This goes beyond annotation basics without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No filler, no repetition of schema annotations, and the main lookup purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core behavior, return content, and usage context. It does not mention error behavior for unknown assets, but given the rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and gives examples for 'canonical.' The description reinforces synonym resolution and ties canonical names to examples, but it does not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Lookup'), a precise resource ('one asset'), and the expected output fields (venues, collateral tokens, open interest, synonyms). It also clarifies that both canonical names and synonyms are accepted, which distinguishes it from plural list tools like list_assets and list_markets.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use when the user mentions a specific asset and you need its venue availability.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_assets for multi-asset lookups, so it stops short of full guidance.

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