api_pera_verified_asset_search

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 return format ('matching assets with verification status, USD value, and logo') but omits behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds some value but leaves significant 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and return format with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context (purpose, parameters, return fields) but lacks completeness regarding behavioral traits like error handling, pagination, or authentication. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in transparency.

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 both parameters. The description mentions search criteria ('by name, unit name, or keyword') which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Search'), target resource ('Pera Wallet verified Algorand mainnet assets'), and search criteria ('by name, unit name, or keyword'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_search_for_assets' by specifying 'verified' assets and 'Pera Wallet' as the source.

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 for searching verified assets, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'api_indexer_search_for_assets' or 'api_pera_verified_asset_details'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are provided.

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