Assets and networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the payload shape (deposit/withdrawal enablement, deposit detection status, maintenance windows, minimums, withdrawal fee) in the absence of an output schema. It stops short of noting pagination or staleness 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource ('Assets listed on CEXY.io') before the attribute list. The trailing enumeration gets slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value explanation well, which is the main gap it needs to fill. It lacks only minor operational detail such as caching or refresh cadence.

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 description coverage is 100%: the asset pattern, limit range/default and offset paging semantics are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (assets listed on CEXY.io) and enumerates the per-network attributes returned, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_markets or get_market, but the resource noun is distinct enough to separate them in practice.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite the sibling set containing market/instrument tools an agent might confuse this with. The only implicit signal is that it is a listing operation.

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