xrocket_asset_infoGet public asset details for xRocket Exchange: view the full asset list or query a specific asset identifier to confirm its current information and availability.
List public assets or inspect one exact asset identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Exact xRocket asset identifier; TON is currently TONCOIN |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs to add less. It adds useful context such as 'public assets' and the TON/TONCOIN identifier note, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the shape of an individual asset inspection—though an output schema is present.
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 that front-loads the core action and covers both invocation modes. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple optional-parameter read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is essentially sufficient. The main missing piece is explicit scenario guidance for choosing list vs. inspect, but this is partly inferable and minor given the schema and hints.
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%, and the asset parameter is already documented with 'Exact xRocket asset identifier; TON is currently TONCOIN'. The description's phrase 'exact asset identifier' largely echoes the schema without adding new semantic details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 public assets' or 'inspect one exact asset identifier'—and makes the tool's scope clear. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the resource domain (assets vs. market data) inherently separates it from the listed market 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xrocket_market_symbols. The only usage clue is implied by the optional asset parameter (omit it to list, provide it to inspect), but no when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.