hashport_get_network_asset_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted information, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of fetching asset details (which may involve network-specific data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential response formats, or any behavioral traits like error cases. This leaves the AI agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's operation and outputs.

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 100% description coverage, with parameters 'networkId' and 'assetId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these are used to fetch asset details, which is already inferred from the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter meanings without extra value from the description.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information for a specific asset on a network', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hashport_get_network_assets' (which likely lists multiple assets) or 'hashport_get_supported_assets' (which might list supported assets), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'hashport_get_network_assets' or when asset details are needed versus general asset lists. This lack of guidance could lead to incorrect tool selection by an AI agent.

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