api_pera_verified_asset_details

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 mentions the tool is for 'Get detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data freshness. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 purpose and lists key attributes without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output format. It's minimally adequate for a simple read tool but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving gaps in transparency and usage context.

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 parameter 'assetId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('an Algorand mainnet asset from Pera Wallet'), with specific attributes listed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'api_pera_asset_verification_status' and 'api_pera_verified_asset_search' by focusing on comprehensive details rather than verification status 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for retrieving detailed asset data, it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'api_algod_get_asset_by_id' or 'api_indexer_lookup_asset_by_id' for context.

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