assets_get_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key details like 'list all instruments' more explicitly.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention it's safe and list-oriented to compensate for the lack of structured behavioral hints, which it doesn't fully do.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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 verb ('Получение' - 'Getting') and resource ('списка доступных инструментов' - 'list of available instruments'), specifying it retrieves instruments with their descriptions including symbols and names. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'assets_get' which might retrieve a single asset rather than a list.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'assets_get' (likely for single asset), 'assets_get_exchanges', and 'assets_get_params', the description doesn't indicate this is for listing all available instruments versus filtered or specific queries.

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