general_get_assets_config

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the endpoint is public, it supports an optional symbol filter, and it returns a specific set of asset fields. 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives filter behavior, return payload, and use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 config tool with only optional parameters, the description covers purpose, return fields, public access, and use cases. Since there is no output schema, listing the returned fields is helpful. It does not mention pagination or response formatting, but that is not strongly required here.

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%, and all three parameters have clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the optional symbol filter but adds no extra meaning for show_exchange or include_testnet beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Gets asset configuration for Bit2Me.' It also lists the returned fields (symbol, name, type, network, trading status, loan availability, pro_trading_pairs) and states the intended use cases. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling config/getter tools, but the resource and output detail make the purpose clear.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use to discover symbols or verify if an asset is tradeable/loanable.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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