koios_address_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it merely restates the function. It does not mention pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), whether ADA is included in 'native assets', or any other behavioral traits such as response shape or error conditions. It is not misleading, but it is extremely minimal.

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, well-formed sentence with clear verb-object structure and no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and concise, though it is arguably too terse to be fully informative.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and a large set of similar sibling tools, this one-liner is insufficient. It does not explain what 'holdings' means, whether results are aggregated per address, or how pagination works, leaving the agent without enough context to predict the tool's behavior or select it appropriately.

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%, so all five parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides; it only implies that '_addresses' is the key input. Per the baseline rule, this scores a 3.

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 ('native asset holdings'), and the scope ('given addresses'). It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from similar sibling tools like address_utxos or account_assets, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 such as address_utxos, address_txs, or account_assets. No context, exclusions, or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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