tool_list_available_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It accurately conveys a read-only listing operation with filtering, but does not mention pagination, sorting, response shape, or any limits. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but not richly transparent.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the filter description is concise and directly actionable.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. Minor gaps like exact asset_type enum values and response ordering are not critical given the output schema exists.

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 for the bare parameter names. It does: 'asset_type' is explained with example values (crypto, forex, commodity) and 'search' is explained as searching by symbol or name.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tradeable assets available for backtesting'), and the filter intent is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that run backtests, optimize strategies, or retrieve results.

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 provides clear context: this tool lists assets available for backtesting, implying it should be used when discovering which symbols or asset types are supported. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings.

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