koios_asset_utxos

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 does not disclose whether the tool is read-only (though 'Get' implies so), whether it includes spent UTxOs, how pagination works, or any rate-limit implications. There is no mention of output structure or error behavior, leaving the agent without key behavior expectations.

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 sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's core function. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description only states the basic function. It does not explain the expected response format, the meaning of 'extended' data, or how the asset list is interpreted. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially with no annotation guidance.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description's one-liner adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('UTxOs containing specific assets'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_addresses or asset_info. The phrasing maps directly to the _asset_list parameter, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 alternative UTxO lookup tools (e.g., address_utxos, credential_utxos, account_utxos). It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess which tool fits their need.

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