market_data_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the credit cost per action and notes that actual credits are returned in headers, which is useful. However, it does not clarify if the operation is read-only, potential errors, or any side effects, leaving a gap.

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 well-structured with bullets and front-loads the main purpose. The credit information adds detail but is relevant. It is not overly verbose.

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 should provide more context on the return payload. It mentions asset details but doesn't describe the structure or fields. The two actions are clear, but the lack of response details leaves the tool under-specified.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already described (e.g., assetId and assetSymbol with examples). The description only repeats the action-to-parameter mapping without adding new semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 handles 'Market Data assets (asset details)' and enumerates two specific actions for retrieving asset details by ID or symbol. This gives a clear verb+resource. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the actions are distinct.

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 usage: use get-asset-details-by-asset-id when you have an ID, and get-asset-details-by-asset-symbol when you have a symbol. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or any exclusions.

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