Retrieve all Indigo iAssets and their current prices to monitor synthetic asset values on the Cardano blockchain.
Get all Indigo iAssets with their prices
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_assets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only getter that returns all assets and their prices, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or whether prices are current snapshots. For a zero-parameter read operation, the basic behavior is clear, but richer context is absent.
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 sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, scope, and key data element are all front-loaded, and every word 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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description names the resource, scope, and included data, which is nearly sufficient to call correctly. A small gap remains: it does not describe the return shape or any enumeration limits, and since no output schema exists, slightly more detail would make it fully self-contained.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because the input schema already communicates that no arguments are needed.
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'), identifies a concrete resource ('Indigo iAssets'), and specifies scope ('all') plus included data ('with their prices'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_asset (single asset) and get_asset_price (price lookup) without requiring schema inspection.
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 'all' qualifier implies this tool is for retrieving the complete set of iAssets with prices, and the contrast with singular get_asset/get_asset_price hints at the boundary. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, such as when only one asset's price is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.