kraken_get_asset_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions included details (precision, margin availability) but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens when no asset parameter is provided. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the action, resource, and key output details in minimal words.

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 with an output schema available, so the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and does not address edge cases like requesting multiple assets or leaving parameters empty. It would benefit from clarifying default behavior or relationship to sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that output includes precision and margin availability, implying why filtering by asset class might be useful, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about supported assets' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions key output specifics (precision and margin availability) that help differentiate it from ticker or order book tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'kraken_get_tradable_asset_pairs', though the resource (assets vs. pairs) is inherently different.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent would not know if this is preferable to kraken_get_tradable_asset_pairs for a given task.

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