assetfare_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: it makes a network request and explicitly never authenticates, signs, submits, or advances a session, which resolves ambiguity about side effects for a status endpoint.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose, usage routing, and safety profile. The most decision-relevant information (what it is and when to use it) is front-loaded, with zero filler.

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 parameterless read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and side-effect profile. The only minor gap is that it does not characterize the shape or content of the returned status/gates, though the surrounding detail is otherwise sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not need to.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) plus a clearly scoped resource (legacy v1 compatibility status and original-corridor safety gates). It differentiates itself from the v2 sibling by naming its exact applicability domain, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('only before the unversioned Solana-SOL-to-Base/Arbitrum-ETH workflow') and when not to, routing agents to assetfare_v2_capabilities for every current v2 route. This is the strongest form of when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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