list_settlement_assets

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is FREE, it returns pricing information for paid endpoints, and it serves as a prerequisite confirmation step. These details are not present in the annotations and help the agent anticipate cost and usage behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE,' and every word contributes. It packs the tool's purpose, output scope, and usage relationship into a compact, well-structured format without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (assets, venues, operators, modes, and prices) and gives usage context. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema offers no semantic burden. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, but it also doesn't add any parameter-related meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 the tool's function: listing the crypto assets, venues, operators, and modes supported by the settlement oracle, plus prices for paid endpoints. It also explicitly distinguishes its role from the sibling tool resolve_price_event, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance by saying 'Call this before resolve_price_event to confirm an asset is covered,' which tells the agent when to use this tool in relation to a specific alternative. However, it does not provide exclusions for when not to use it (e.g., if you already know coverage), so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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