api_pera_asset_verification_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying it's a read operation ('Get') and describes the return format (verification tier and explorer URL). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is cached/live. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes essential output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, specifies the network (Algorand mainnet) and source (Pera Wallet), and outlines the return values. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error cases, performance expectations) to fully guide an agent.

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%, with the single parameter 'assetId' fully documented in the schema as 'Asset ID to check verification status'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or valid ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get the verification status'), target resource ('an Algorand mainnet asset from Pera Wallet'), and output details ('verification tier and explorer URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'api_pera_verified_asset_details' and 'api_pera_verified_asset_search' by focusing on status retrieval for a specific asset ID rather than detailed asset information or search functionality.

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 when needing verification status for a specific Algorand asset, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'api_pera_verified_asset_details' (which may provide more detailed information) or 'api_algod_get_asset_by_id' (which retrieves basic asset data). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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