List Assets

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: assets are canonical and grouped by economic exposure, and each entry includes synonyms, venues, aggregate OI, and a cross-market flag. It does not disclose size/performance traits, but they are not critical for a read-only directory with rich annotation coverage.

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 sentences with no filler: the first defines scope and output content, the second gives usage examples. The distinguishing scoping phrase 'grouped by economic exposure (not by venue ticker)' is placed early and 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two well-described optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the result contains and when to prefer it. It does not mention the closely named sibling list_asset (singular), so an agent hunting for a single-asset detail view gets only partial routing context, but this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents both optional booleans. The description reinforces crossMarketOnly by defining cross-market as 'listed on 2+ venues' and supplying a matching query example, but it adds no new information about useToonFormat or syntax.

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?

Description names a precise resource: a directory of every canonical Hyperliquid/builder-dex asset, and specifies how it is organized (economic exposure, not venue ticker). It also differentiates from list_markets by giving concrete query phrasings, so an agent can identify this tool without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly instructs to prefer this over list_markets for specific user questions ('what assets are available?', 'which venues is GOLD on?', 'show me cross-market assets'). This is direct when-to-use guidance that routes to the correct sibling.

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