assetfare_v2_capabilities

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable transparency by stating it 'creates no wallet login, session, or action'. This explicitly rules out side effects beyond what annotations imply, which is critical for a pre-quote check tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose and the second provides a concrete example and explicitly mentions read-only behavior. The critical information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is read, gives an example of how to interpret the output, and clarifies side effects. The agent has enough to correctly invoke and interpret the tool without additional context.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't; it focuses on the tool's purpose and example usage. This is appropriate given the empty schema.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('76-route capability and live-availability matrix'), and explicitly positions it as a pre-quote step. The example (solana:USDC->base:USDC) further clarifies the specific capability checks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like quote, prepare, and session operations.

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 explicitly says 'before quoting', giving clear temporal guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is so specific that an agent would naturally select this tool for capability checks prior to quote operations. The example also reinforces the intended use case.

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