get_assetsRetrieve a list of assets for a specific user via Yimu bookkeeping, using an optional start timestamp to filter records created after that time; omit timestamp to return all assets.
查询资产列表（GET /asset/getAsset/{userId}/{time}），time 为起始时间戳(ms)，缺省 0 全量。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | No | 起始时间戳(ms) | |
| user_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET) and the default behavior for 'time' (0 = all), which implies a read operation. But it lacks explicit read-only statement, response format, pagination, or any note about authentication or side effects, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then provides the endpoint and parameter semantics. Every clause carries useful information and there is no filler or repetition.
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 simple read tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential function and the time parameter. It is incomplete because it omits the user_id parameter, does not state return shape or any incremental behavior, and provides no fallback guidance, which an agent might need when calling without parameters.
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 description adds meaningful detail for the 'time' parameter (start timestamp in ms, default 0 means full data), which the schema only describes minimally. However, it does not explain 'user_id' at all, leaving that parameter semantically empty. The schema coverage is exactly 50%, and the description compensates for one but not both parameters.
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 uses a specific verb '查询' (query) and resource 'asset list', and includes the full endpoint path. It is clearly distinct from sibling write operations like save_asset and delete_asset, so an agent can tell this is a read-only listing tool just from the text.
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 purpose implies usage: when you need the asset list, use this. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as save_asset or delete_asset for mutations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.