identify_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields, which is useful context, but it omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if the asset is not found) and any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, so the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids redundancies with the schema. This is an ideal level of conciseness.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), so the description must communicate return values. It lists the expected fields, which is essential. It lacks explicit handling of not-found cases, but for a straightforward lookup tool with clear scope, the description is largely 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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for assetId ('Asset or ARC-200 contract ID on Voi'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by ID', which is also present in the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, 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 specific operation: 'Identify a Voi asset by ID' and lists the return fields (name, symbol, type, protocol, category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_assets and identify_application, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: when you have an asset ID and need identifying details. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions, but the sibling names and the specific ID-based lookup make the intended usage clear. A more explicit note about not using it for search or application identification would improve it.

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