Get assets (DAS)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned content (metadata, authorities, creators, royalties, price) and asset classes covered. It does not mention pagination behavior or cost/rate limits, so it stays at a solid 3 rather than 4.

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 dense sentence front-loads the standard and the primary access pattern, then enumerates coverage and returned fields. No filler, though the field/asset enumeration is crammed into the same sentence and could be separated for readability.

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 5 parameters, 40% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry more of the load. It covers asset classes and returned fields adequately but leaves three of five modes and pagination semantics (page/limit defaults, max 1000) undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this breadth.

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 only 40%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it partially does: it maps 'by mint' to byId and 'by owner' to byOwner. But byCreator, byAuthority and byCollection modes are unexplained in both schema and description, and onlyVerified is only documented in the schema. Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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?

States a specific verb (lookup) and resource (digital asset) and names the standard ('DAS') and the two dominant access paths (by mint, by owner). It is distinguishable from the sibling search_assets by being a direct lookup rather than a search. It falls short of 5 because it does not acknowledge that five modes are supported, listing only two.

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 implies usage by contrasting 'one asset by mint' vs 'every asset held by an owner', which maps loosely to byId vs byOwner. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over search_assets, analyze_token, or get_token_holders, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied, not stated.

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