mb_get_asset_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The 'List' verb implies a read-only operation, and the multi-network context is helpful, but it does not disclose output format, behavior for unknown assets, or any special handling. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and the second provides a relevant example. There is no redundant information, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description adequately covers its purpose and usage context. However, it lacks details about the exact output structure or behavior for single-network assets, and with no annotations or output schema, a bit more specificity would improve completeness.

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 already fully describes the 'asset' parameter with examples (USDT, BTC), and the description echoes this without adding new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra parameter information.

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 ('List') and the target ('available blockchain networks for a specific asset'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on networks rather than prices or orders. The multi-network example reinforces the scope.

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 indicates when this tool is relevant, especially for multi-network assets like USDT, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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