market_coingecko_asset_platforms

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'Get list' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether results are paginated, how the filter behaves, or what fields the returned items contain. This is a minimal disclosure for a potentially data-rich list endpoint.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) but the description still leaves gaps: it does not specify what the returned list looks like (e.g., object structure, fields), nor how the optional filter narrows results. Given the lack of an output schema, a brief mention of return contents would improve completeness.

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%: the 'filter' parameter is described as 'Filter platforms (e.g., 'nft')'. However, the tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it relies entirely on the schema to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for full coverage is 3.

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 a specific verb ('Get list'), a resource ('asset platforms (blockchains)'), and a purpose ('for token lookups'). It is distinct enough from the many sibling market_coingecko_* tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like market_get_blockchains.

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 phrase 'for token lookups' implies a use case, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as market_coingecko_contract or geckoterminal_get_networks. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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