Read an on-chain agent (asset, registration, wallet)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and openWorldHint:true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: checks whether the identity PDA exists, the built-in agent wallet (Asset Signer PDA) with live SOL balance, and mentions EIP-4 registration documents. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single dense paragraph separates the return fields by semicolons. The content is valuable and specific but no section breaks, bullets, or formatting are used; every item in the catalog is described in a single run-on style.

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?

There is a rich annotation (readOnly, openWorld) and an ample description that enumerates the returned data (identity, plugins public roles, decoded metadata, EIP-4 documents, existence, wallet balance). There is no output schema, so for a complete result the narrative is required, but it covers all relevant data and edge cases of a high-complexity 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Core asset address (base58)', 'Cluster. Defaults to configured network.'). The description reinforces the schema (base58,maxLength) and adds the network default value, but does not explain address format or usage details 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?

Description begins with a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('asion of a Metaplex Agent by its core address. It lists distinct data items: name, update authority, plugins, decoded metadata, EIP-4 registration documents, PDA existence, and wallet live SOL balance. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it is read-only and targeting a single agent, not listing all agents.

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?

Description conveys clear context for use: 'Read-only. Works on any registered agent, e.g. the three Genesis mints.' It does not name explicit alternatives, but its read-only designation and focus on a single address versus listing agents provides reasonable use guidance.

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