Get Symbol By Asset

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: base/null maps to GBYTE, unknown assets fall back to sanitized asset characters, and the dual-network behavior is disclosed. This exceeds what the annotations alone would tell an agent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by edge-case behavior and the network caveat. The network guidance is longer but earns its place because it prevents a common mistake. Little is wasted, though the registry wording could be tighter.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the core mapping behavior and the main network ambiguity. It does not explain what the actual return value looks like, how the registry is selected, or how token_registry_address interacts with the default behavior, so an agent still has some uncertainty before calling.

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 carries most of the parameter meaning. It explains asset behavior well and explains the network parameter including default and confirmation guidance. However, token_registry_address is only vaguely referenced as 'the selected registry' and is never directly described, leaving one parameter ambiguous.

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 clear verb and resource: it resolves an Obyte asset id to a token symbol through a registry. It adds useful specifics about base/null mapping to GBYTE and fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from related sibling tools such as obyte_get_asset_by_symbol or obyte_resolve_asset.

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 a clear operational rule for choosing a network: pass mainnet or testnet, default to mainnet, and confirm with the user if unspecified. This is helpful but it never mentions when to prefer this tool over sibling resolution tools or when not to use it.

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