getAssetList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing a behavioral filter ('Only tokens with non-zero balance are returned') and stating the return metrics. It adds usable detail about response semantics and does not contradict the annotations, though pagination/response-size behavior is not covered.

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 initial bullets are useful, but the 'Agent hint' paragraph repeats the same tradeFlag/tokenCode/do-not-use guidance almost verbatim. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is overly long, and the duplication does not earn 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the response contains and how it should be used, and it does so: PnL, cost basis, market price, tradeFlag, tokenCode, and chainCode+tokenAddress routing are all covered. It does not specify exact response shape or pagination, but for a simple read-only portfolio query the essential usage context is present.

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?

There are zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description cannot add parameter semantics, but it does add meaning to key response fields (tradeFlag, tokenCode, chainCode, tokenAddress) that downstream calls depend on.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and object — 'Query user's on-chain token portfolio' — and enumerates the return shape (total USD value, per-token holdings, unrealized PnL, cost basis, current market price). Explicit 'Do NOt' statements distinguish it from getBizTokenList and getBizTokenPriceList, so it is clearly differentiated from siblings.

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?

States an explicit trigger in the agent hint ('assets, balance, holdings, portfolio, or profit/loss') and gives hard negative use cases with named alternatives: 'Do NOt use this endpoint to discover new tokens — use getBizTokenList instead' and 'Do NOt use this for market data... use getBizTokenPriceList'. It also tells the agent to check tradeFlag before selling and to reuse tokenCode/chainCode+tokenAddress in downstream calls.

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