list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists supported assets but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or how 'supported' is determined. Minimal transparency.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose; no unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the core purpose and what is returned (list of assets with data categories), but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or scope (e.g., does it include all historical assets?).

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics (unnecessary), but the mention of 'available data categories' hints at output content. For a no-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'supported assets (cryptocurrencies)' and specifies that it includes 'available data categories'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'describe_metric' which focus on metrics rather than assets.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the simplicity of the tool (0 parameters) implies direct use, the description lacks context for when it is appropriate (e.g., 'Use to get all supported assets before filtering').

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