general_get_assets_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is public ([PUBLIC]) and returns specific fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read-only configuration tool, this is minimally adequate but could be improved by noting idempotency or performance characteristics.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a use-case sentence and [PUBLIC] tag. It is front-loaded with the main action and returns fields, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it does, what it returns (listing fields), and when to use it. While it could mention the default behavior for the symbol filter, the schema already covers that. This is complete enough for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (symbol, include_testnet, show_exchange). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema—it only reiterates 'Optional symbol filter'. Thus it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed expectations.

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 the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'asset configuration for Bit2Me'. It lists specific returned fields (symbol, name, type, network, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like broker_get_asset_data by being a general config tool. The action is well-defined and unambiguous.

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 states the intended usage: 'Use to discover symbols or verify if an asset is tradeable/loanable.' This gives clear guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly differentiate from similar tools like pro_get_market_config, though the [PUBLIC] tag hints at public data.

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