get_asset_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' honestly signals a read-only operation, and 'current' plus 'per collateral asset' convey that the result is a fresh, multi-entry price set rather than a single number. However, it does not disclose the return shape, units, freshness guarantees, or behavior for unsupported assets, though the absence of those is less critical for a simple getter.

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?

A single 15-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, states the key scoping constraint, and contains zero filler or repetition of the tool name. 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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the core operation and the conceptual return ('price(s) per collateral asset') but stops short of describing the response structure. Since there is no output schema to fill that gap, an agent cannot fully anticipate whether the result is a map, a list, or a nested object — a notable but modest omission for such a simple tool.

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, and it partially does: 'for a specific Indigo iAsset' gives semantic meaning to the bare enum values (iUSD, iBTC, etc.) in the schema. However, it never names the 'asset' parameter explicitly, leaves 'ADA and others' vague about which collateral assets are valid, and does not clarify what the output looks like for each collateral asset.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a precise resource ('current price(s) for a specific Indigo iAsset') and a distinctive scoping detail ('per collateral asset (ADA and others)'). This clearly differentiates it from price-related siblings like get_ada_price, get_indy_price, get_oracle_price, and get_pyth_price, which target different assets or price-feed sources.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_oracle_price, get_pyth_price, get_ada_price, or get_indy_price. Given over 70 siblings including several price-fetching tools, the lack of any exclusion or alternative routing leaves the agent to infer selection purely from the tool name and the phrase 'Indigo iAsset'.

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