get_asset_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation (get) and lists the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or the full scope of 'details' (whether the list is exhaustive).

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and enumerates key return details. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by naming three specific return fields. For a simple getter, this is adequate, but it lacks information on error conditions, the certainty of the field list, and any rate limits or permissions.

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 only parameter, 'symbol', has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description mentions 'one asset' but does not explicitly state that a symbol is required or provide any format validation. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter 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 the tool returns details for one asset, listing specific fields (payout, open status, allowed expirations). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_assets (multiple assets) and get_price (single price point).

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 context is clear—use for a single asset—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like get_price or get_candles. The description implies usage but does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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