liquid_list_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. It states the tool lists assets and their balances, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether zero-balance assets are included, the return format, or any rate limits or permissions needed. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and scope immediately.

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?

The tool is low complexity with zero parameters and no output schema. The description provides the essential scope (all Liquid assets) and the key return value (satoshi balance). It does not detail the return structure, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. The empty schema already covers parameters fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly specifies the resource: 'every Liquid asset held by the wallet with its satoshi balance.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'liquid_list_transactions' (transactions) and 'liquid_get_balance' (total balance), and from 'liquid_get_asset_balance' which targets a single asset.

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 phrase 'List every Liquid asset' clearly indicates when to use this tool — when you need all wallet assets and their balances. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope ('every') is clear enough to infer the intended use case.

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