فهرست دارایی‌های فعال فروشگاه

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key behavioral trait that only 'active' assets are returned and that the payload carries usable assetIds. It stays silent on permissions/auth requirements, what happens if no store is selected, and whether the list is paginated.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the retrieval statement comes first and the actionable follow-up second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should sketch the shape of the returned asset list (fields beyond assetId, ordering, whether wallet/network info is included). It only names assetId, leaving the return contract partially opaque for an agent that must then act on that data.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of the response's assetId adds useful context even though no input exists.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it lists the active assets of the currently selected store, which tells an agent exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling theypaid_get_asset_catalog, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the two to call.

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?

Provides clear downstream context: use the exact assetId from the response when creating an invoice, which routes the agent toward theypaid_create_invoice. It does not state prerequisites (a store must first be chosen via theypaid_select_store) nor when to prefer this over the asset catalog.

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