hashport_get_network_assets

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 the tool 'Get assets available on a specific network', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it returns a list, details, or amounts; whether it requires authentication; or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'assets' means in this context (e.g., tokens, NFTs), the format of the return value, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with no structured support, this minimal description leaves too many open questions.

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 'networkId' documented as 'Network ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid network ID or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Get assets') and the target ('available on a specific network'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'hashport_get_supported_assets' or 'hashport_get_network_asset_details', which appear to serve related but potentially different purposes.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to assets and networks (e.g., 'hashport_get_supported_assets', 'hashport_get_network_asset_details'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.

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