assets_get_params

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a retrieval operation ('Получение'), it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a real-time or cached data source. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant behavioral gaps.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place by specifying what trading parameters are retrieved.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, and relatively simple functionality (retrieval of trading parameters), the description is reasonably complete. However, the lack of behavioral context (especially with no annotations) and usage guidance prevents a perfect score for this financial data tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter's format, pattern, and examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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' - retrieval) and the resource ('торговые параметры по инструменту'), specifying what financial parameters are obtained. It distinguishes from siblings like assets_get (general asset data) and assets_get_list (asset listings) by focusing specifically on trading parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with market_data_get tools that provide different market 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or contrast with sibling tools like assets_get (which might provide different asset information) or market_data_get tools that provide different types of market data. 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.