Asset lookup

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that owner data comes from different sources depending on asset standard, that each reader's freshness is reported, and that the two owners are only treated as agreeing when both reads were live. This meaningfully warns agents about potential owner disagreement on stale reads.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core lookup behavior. Both sentences add information about output contents or freshness behavior, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description names the concrete fields and data sources returned, including freshness reporting and the owner-agreement caveat. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, mint, is already described as 'Asset mint address.' The description simply restates 'by mint address' and adds no further format, validation, or encoding detail, so the baseline score applies.

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 identifies a get-by-key lookup for a single asset: 'Everything known about one asset by mint address.' It enumerates the content groups returned, including marketplace metadata and the on-chain owner, which distinguishes it from wallet-level and collection-level sibling 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?

The phrase 'one asset by mint address' provides clear invocation context: use this when the caller already has a mint address and needs a full asset picture. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions among the many siblings, but the single-asset scope is clear enough to avoid obvious confusion.

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