Assets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that large results are not returned inline and instead produce a result_id to retrieve via results_query. That is genuine, non-redundant disclosure about result handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the resource contains and followed by usage and result-handling notes. The attribute enumeration is dense but informative and every clause carries weight.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the result_id storage mechanism, which an agent needs to actually consume the output. Filter options and asset contents are also covered, leaving little an agent would need to infer before calling.

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 100% with all four parameters documented in the schema itself. The description merely recaps the filter fields (status, class, exchange, attributes) without adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource (tradable assets) and enumerates the attributes returned, which tells an agent exactly what data it yields. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with near-siblings like reference_asset (singular) or reference_option_contracts.

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?

It states which fields can be used to filter ('Filter by status, class, exchange or attributes') and warns the unfiltered list is large, which implies the preferred usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as reference_asset, results_query, or results_describe.

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