getVASPList

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those hints: the returned list is scoped to the user's compliance zone determined by UID, and the 'others' sentinel handles exchanges outside the list. This helps the agent understand non-obvious user-specific behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by concise bullet points for usage context and fallback behavior. Every line earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 no-parameter, read-only lookup with supporting annotations, the description covers purpose, compliance context, user-scoping behavior, and a fallback identifier. It could optionally describe the shape of the returned list, but it does indicate that a list is returned and the current level of detail is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 no properties, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description's mention of vaspEntityId refers to usage in a related downstream context, not to this tool's schema, which is acceptable.

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 operation: 'Query the list of available VASPs' and expands the acronym 'Virtual Asset Service Providers'. It is specific about the resource being returned and is easily distinguished from the many other get* tools in the sibling list because it targets the VASP domain.

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 concrete usage context: 'Used for Travel Rule compliance when withdrawing to exchanges.' It also provides a practical instruction for a common edge case, using 'others' as vaspEntityId for exchanges not in the list. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no direct sibling appears to offer the same VASP-list capability.

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