get_v4_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that no API key is needed, which is positive. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, expected response size, or any side effects (though it is a read operation). The transparency is adequate but not detailed.

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 front-loads the main purpose and ends with a key usage note. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. This is an excellent example 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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns and the lack of authentication requirement. It could be slightly improved by hinting at output format or error cases, but overall it is complete enough for an AI agent to understand its function.

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 100%, with both parameters (chainId and tokenAddress) described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters; it simply restates the tool's purpose. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('Aave V4 asset details'), and the specific data returned (total supplied/borrowed, average APY, price). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_v4_reserves or get_v4_user_positions.

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 includes a useful guideline ('No API key needed'), indicating ease of access. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_v4_reserves which might also return asset-level data. No exclusion criteria or context for selection are given.

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