assets_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what information is retrieved, it doesn't describe the tool's behavior beyond that—such as whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated), error handling, response format, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the type of information retrieved, which complements the structured data. However, it lacks behavioral context like error cases or usage constraints, which would be beneficial despite the output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'symbol' fully documented in the input schema (including format, examples, and pattern). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the MIC part or how symbols are structured. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Получение информации' - getting information) and the resource ('по конкретному инструменту' - about a specific instrument), with specific examples of what information is retrieved (lot, price step, futures expiration date). It distinguishes from siblings like assets_get_list (which likely lists multiple assets) and assets_get_params (which might get different parameters). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like assets_get_exchanges or assets_get_schedule.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use assets_get versus assets_get_list (for multiple assets) or assets_get_params (for different parameters), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication requirements or rate limits. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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