fassets_system_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. As a state query, it is likely read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 a single sentence that packs multiple key data fields without redundancy. However, it is slightly dense and could benefit from slight restructuring for readability. Still, no filler words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers many return fields but does not specify data types or structure. Enums parameters are simple. For a state query tool, this is adequate but not fully complete—e.g., it omits any notes on performance or consistency.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the enum values—it does not explain what 'asset' or 'network' represent or how they affect the output. The description lists output fields but not parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states it provides 'Global FAssets system state for an asset' and enumerates specific data fields (total minted, agent count, lot size, minting cap/pause, collateral, redemption queue). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fassets_agent_status which focuses on individual agents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Sibling tools like get_fassets_status exist but no comparison is provided.

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