get_fassets_status

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

Discloses the data source (on-chain AssetManager with a fallback to flaremetrics.io), adding context beyond the simple 'get status' phrasing. However, with no annotations, the description should also indicate read-only nature and potential error scenarios, which are absent.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists the return fields, specifies supported assets and networks, and mentions the data source. No redundant information.

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?

Covers what the tool does and the key output fields (total minted, active agent count). Missing return format details and error handling info, but the tool is simple and the output is implicitly understood from the description. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description clarifies the enum values ('FXRP, FBTC or FDOGE' and 'mainnet, coston2'), explaining what the asset and network parameters represent. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves FAssets status (total minted, active agent count) for specific assets (FXRP, FBTC, FDOGE) on a given network. Distinguishes from sibling tools like fassets_agent_status or fassets_system_state by focusing on aggregate asset-level metrics.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like fassets_agent_status or fassets_liquidation_scanner. The description does not specify prerequisites, preferred use cases, or exclusions.

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