list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses sorting (by payout), a limit cap, and that the output includes payout and expiration values. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only (though 'list' suggests it), nor does it describe pagination or error behavior. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact filter list and output notes. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides key return details (payout and expirations) and the ordering behavior. It does not fully specify the response structure (e.g., array of objects, exact field names), but for a list tool this is sufficient. The lack of annotations is partially mitigated by the description's coverage of parameters and behavior.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description explains every parameter in plain language: active_only (open for trading), otc_only (synthetic pairs), asset_type with allowed values, search as a substring, and limit as the cap. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'List tradeable assets' – a specific verb and resource. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like get_asset_info (single asset) and get_price (current price) by focusing on the list/overview function. The inclusion of filters and output fields (payout, expirations) further clarifies its 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 establishes a clear use case: retrieving a list of tradeable assets with filtering options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it. Sibling tool names like get_asset_info imply the alternative, though not stated in the description.

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