list_assets

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It does disclose the shape of the payload (all tradeable assets with chain, symbol, decimals), implying a complete, unpaginated read, but it says nothing about whether the call requires auth, whether the list is cached/static, or how fresh it is. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first establishes what the resource is, the second delivers the operational convention. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the important ground by enumerating the returned fields itself. What is missing is minor: no statement about ordering, size of the list, or whether the set is chain-scoped, but an agent could call this correctly as written.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description earns its keep by instead documenting the 'SYMBOL@chain' identifier convention with two concrete examples ('USDT@ethereum', 'BTC@bitcoin'), which is value the schema cannot supply since the schema is an empty object.

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 opens with a concrete noun-plus-scope ('Asset registry: every tradeable asset') and names the returned fields (chain, symbol, decimals), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is unmistakably distinct from the RFQ/deal siblings, which are all workflow actions. It stops short of an explicit verb phrase like 'list all supported assets', which is why it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 second sentence gives actionable context: assets are referenced elsewhere as 'SYMBOL@chain', so the agent knows this tool is how you learn valid identifiers before calling create_rfq, fund_leg, and friends. There is no need for exclusions because no sibling lists assets, but the description never states the trigger explicitly ('call this first to resolve an asset id').

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