resolve_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It declares the tool returns specific metadata fields but does not mention side effects, network calls, failure modes, or authorization requirements. The disclosure is adequate but 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 extremely concise: two sentences that clearly convey purpose and return fields. Every word is necessary; no filler or ambiguity. This is efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the primary action and return values. However, it could benefit from noting potential errors (e.g., invalid identifier) or network dependence. Overall, it is nearly complete for a single-parameter resolution tool.

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 only parameter, 'asset_id', is already well-described in the input schema with examples. The tool description adds no extra semantic value for the parameter; it only lists output fields. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional meaning is provided.

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 purpose: 'Resolve a CAIP-19 asset identifier to token metadata.' It specifies the input format (CAIP-19) and the output fields (address, decimals, symbol, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assets or get_tokens, which may have different scopes or input requirements.

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 like get_assets or get_tokens. It implies usage for CAIP-19 identifiers but lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' direction. The context is not fully clarified.

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