koios_asset_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not disclose pagination behavior, extended data handling, response format, or error conditions. The schema indicates these features, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a basic read.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits important usage context that would fit naturally without bloat. It is not a tautology, but it does not earn its place as an adequate summary.

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, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is under-specified. The input includes a nested array of asset pairs and several pagination/ordering options, but the description does not explain the return value, how the input should be structured, or what 'detailed information' entails. It is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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%: all six parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but per the baseline rule for high coverage, the schema sufficiently documents parameters, so no penalty is warranted.

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 clear verb+resource pattern ('Get detailed information about specific assets'), but 'detailed information' is vague and does not specify what data will be returned. With numerous asset-related sibling tools (koios_asset_history, koios_asset_summary, koios_asset_utxos, etc.), it fails to differentiate from them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or contrasts with sibling tools like koios_asset_list or koios_asset_token_registry. The agent is left without any selection criteria.

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