asa_get_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Load', which implies a read operation, but does not clarify potential error behavior, network dependency, or output format. The mention of 'Algod' hints at the underlying API but does not explain any side effects or limitations.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description adequately conveys the core purpose. However, with no output schema and no additional context, the agent lacks information about the return structure or any edge cases, so the description is minimally sufficient but not 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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for assetId and network. The description adds no new meaning beyond saying 'by asset ID', which is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('ASA configuration and on-chain parameters'), and specifies the method ('by asset ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asa_get_holding or asa_search_holdings by focusing on the asset definition rather than holdings or searches.

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 a use case (retrieving a single asset's configuration by ID) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons with related tools, leaving the usage guidance to inference.

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