xRocket assets

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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds the useful facts that the tool operates only on public assets and that inspection requires an exact identifier, but it does not go deeper into behavior such as what happens if 'asset' is omitted or invalid.

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?

Eight words express the full scope and the two operating modes with no filler. The most important verb and resource are front-loaded.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, complete schema coverage, an output schema, and full safety annotations. Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call this 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 schema already documents the only parameter at 100% coverage, including the important 'TON is currently TONCOIN' format cue, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description loosely reinforces the exact-identifier semantics but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 states specific actions ('List' / 'inspect') on a clear resource ('public assets' / 'asset identifier') and distinguishes two modes: a broad listing or a single exact lookup. This clearly separates it from the market-data-oriented sibling tools.

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 two-call patterns give a clear context for when to call it, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as xrocket_market_symbols. An agent must infer that market-specific data belongs to the xrocket_market_* siblings.

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