Get Decimals By Symbol Or Asset

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lighter. Still, the description adds valuable behavioral facts: symbols are uppercased before lookup, base aliases have fixed decimals, registry data is untrusted metadata, and network behavior defaults to mainnet. These details materially affect how results are interpreted and are not available in the annotations or schema.

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 organized into two compact paragraphs: the first states the core behavior and base-unit decimals, the second addresses network selection. Every sentence earns its place, and the important network caveat is separated rather than buried. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation fields.

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 read-only lookup, the description covers the required input, normalization behavior, base-unit values, and network selection. The main gap is the undocumented token_registry_address parameter, which may matter for custom registry lookups. The return format is not described, but that is less critical for a tool whose result is inherently a small numeric value.

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 description must compensate for the schema's lack of prose. It does explain symbol_or_asset well (base aliases/registry symbols, uppercase normalization) and network well (mainnet/testnet, default, confirmation). However, the optional token_registry_address parameter is never described, so the agent cannot learn when or why to provide it from the description. This missing parameter keeps the score at 3.

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 opening sentence ties a specific verb ('Returns decimals') to a defined resource ('base aliases or a registry-known token symbol/asset') and directly maps to the symbol_or_asset parameter. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like obyte_get_asset_by_symbol and obyte_get_symbol_by_asset, which address a different lookup direction. The unit-precision detail further clarifies exactly what the caller receives.

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?

It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but it gives strong operational guidance: the server serves both Obyte networks, network selection must be explicit when ambiguous, and the default is mainnet. The instruction to confirm the network with the user before calling when it is not explicit is a concrete usage rule. Lacking explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use versus sibling tools prevents a 5.

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