list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes that the tool groups by economic exposure, lists synonyms, venues, aggregated open interest, and cross-market flag. This is good behavioral disclosure, though it could mention that it's a read-only query (implied) and any performance or rate-limit traits.

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 sentences: the first delivers purpose and output details, the second provides usage guidance. No filler, every sentence earns its place. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains what each asset entry contains (synonyms, venues, OI, cross-market flag). For a directory/list tool, this is sufficiently complete to inform the agent about return structure.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds minimal information beyond the schema; it implies crossMarketOnly behavior via the 'cross-market flag' mention but doesn't elaborate. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the param semantics.

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 tool lists every canonical asset traded on Hyperliquid or builder dexes, grouped by economic exposure, not venue ticker. It distinguishes from siblings like list_markets by specifying asset-level vs market-level data.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this tool: 'Prefer this over list_markets when the user asks...' with concrete examples like 'what assets are available?', 'which venues is GOLD on?', or 'show me cross-market assets'. This provides clear usage context.

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