heliusAsset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only access by mentioning 'ownership or metadata' but never explicitly states that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with 22 parameters.

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, concise and front-loaded with key terms. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, which harms overall utility. For a complex tool, it is overly terse.

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 tool has 22 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to perform actions, what the inputs mean, what responses look like, or how to handle the tool effectively. This is totally inadequate.

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 14%, yet the tool description adds no information about any parameters. It does not explain what 'id', 'ids', 'action', etc., mean or how they relate to the tool's purpose. For a tool with 22 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 identifies the tool covers assets, NFTs, collections, proofs, and token holders. It specifies it is for DAS ownership or metadata, distinguishing it from transaction history. However, it does not explicitly mention the available actions (e.g., getAsset) which are in the schema, leaving some ambiguity about the full scope.

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 a guideline: 'Use for DAS ownership or metadata, not transaction history.' This hints at when to use vs alternative tools like heliusTransaction, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios and does not mention other sibling tools that might overlap, leaving usage decisions partially unclear.

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