get_asset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by noting that string fields are base64-encoded in the raw response, a key behavioral trait. However, it could mention potential performance or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide the necessary behavioral note. Every sentence is essential, with no redundant or verbose text.

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 read-only nature (annotations) and high schema coverage, the description adequately covers the input, output content, and a behavioral edge case (base64 encoding). It is complete for a simple query tool, though it could mention error handling for missing assets.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description provides example asset IDs (e.g., 'KLV', 'USDT-A1B2') that align with the schema, adding slight contextual value but no substantial new meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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'), the resource ('asset on the Klever blockchain'), and enumerates specific properties returned (supply info, permissions, roles, precision, metadata). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_account or get_balance by being the only asset-specific query tool.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account, get_balance, or get_block. It implicitly defines its purpose but lacks any 'use this when' or 'don't use for' statements.

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