get_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a non-destructive read operation, which is useful and accurate. However, it does not disclose what the returned 'details' contain, whether the data is live or cached, or how failures (e.g. an invalid or unlisted asset) behave. This is adequate for a simple read but not rich.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. Every word contributes to identifying the operation without requiring the reader to parse extra context.

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 an enum, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it: the agent knows it needs to supply one of the listed iAssets. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify exactly what 'details' means and how the response differs from get_asset_price. That missing context prevents the definition from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the context that the asset is an 'Indigo iAsset', tying the enum values to the protocol's asset family. The enum values (e.g. iUSD, iBTC) are already self-explanatory, and the single parameter is constrained, so the lack of deeper parameter explanation is not severely damaging. Still, the description does not explain what each value represents or how the parameter maps to the returned details.

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 names a concrete action ('Get details') and a concrete resource ('a specific Indigo iAsset'). It also sets scope via 'specific', which helps separate it from the plural sibling get_assets. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_asset_price or explain whether 'details' includes price, so the distinction is clear but not fully spelled out.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to choose this tool over get_assets, get_asset_price, or the broader family of read-only asset tools. An agent must infer when this is the right tool from the name and one-line description alone.

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