List Pulse Verity Index Assets

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: catalog rows are unsigned, total is not a count of fresh prices, availability changes, and pagination is bounded and manual. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations alone communicate, with no contradiction.

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 four tight sentences with no filler. The action and endpoint are front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct, decision-relevant fact: unsigned data, alternatives, total semantics, and pagination behavior.

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 read-only paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, purpose, unsigned data caveat, total semantics, pagination behavior, and sibling alternatives. It falls slightly short by not explicitly describing the response structure or stating that limit/offset are the paging controls, though these are implied.

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 burden falls on the description. It provides indirect semantic clues: 'bounded page' implies limit/offset, 'coverage status' maps to status, and 'measured cadence' maps to band. However, it never explicitly defines each parameter or explains how to use the enum values, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one bounded page from /api/index/v1/verity/catalog.' It clearly states what the tool does—discover crypto symbols, coverage status, and cadence—and differentiates it from siblings by explicitly pointing to get_index_price and get_index_batch for signed receipts.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to prefer alternatives: 'use get_index_price or get_index_batch for signed receipts.' It also warns that there is no automatic pagination, implying the caller must handle paging. It does not explicitly contrast with get_settlement_print or verify_print, but the primary use case is clear.

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