getAssetDetail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the response shape (assetList with 0 or 1 element) and interprets the empty-array case. This is exactly the kind of runtime behavior an agent needs and would not otherwise know.

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 unnecessarily repetitive: the key information and the two 'Do NOT' warnings appear twice, once in the main body and again in the 'Agent hint' block. The repeated content adds no new value and bloats the description, though the front-loaded purpose and return-field mention are good.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, return contents, empty-array semantics, parameter sourcing, and explicit exclusions for sibling tools. Nothing essential for invoking this endpoint correctly is missing.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry meaning for the parameters. It explains both chainCode and tokenAddress identify a specific token, and—more valuably—tells the agent exactly where to obtain valid values (from getAssetList or getBizTokenList). It does not document format or allowed values, but the sourcing instruction compensates for the schema gap.

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 and resource: query detailed holding information for a specific token by chain code and token address. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly excluding getBizTokenPriceList and getBizTokenDetails, making its purpose 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when the user asks about a particular asset's holding details. It also provides positive sourcing instructions for parameters (use chainCode and tokenAddress from getAssetList or getBizTokenList) and negative exclusions for alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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