account_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by separating read actions (oiLimit, paymentCoins, switchStatus, deductInfo) from write/set actions. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or any confirmation requirements for writes. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't go beyond the basic read/write split.

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, dense sentence that efficiently lists all action categories and includes a valuable parenthetical limitation. The '[VERB]' placeholder is a minor structural flaw, but the rest is well-packed with no redundant filler.

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 14 parameters and 9 distinct actions, the description provides a compact overview of all action groups and highlights a key limitation. The schema covers individual parameter semantics, so the description's role is to tie actions together, which it does. It could have mentioned the 'view' summary/full parameter or confirmation flow, but those are already in the schema.

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 stated as 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful cross-reference: the isolated margin note linking to setLeverage posSide. It also summarizes action-to-parameter relationships (e.g., 'setLeverage (needs: category, leverage)'), which the schema independently provides. No major added semantic beyond the schema.

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 enumerates the tool's scope: setting account mode, holding mode, leverage, switching account/deduct, and reading oiLimit/paymentCoins/switchStatus/deductInfo. It distinguishes itself from sibling account_overview by covering configuration actions. However, it lacks a single strong verb due to the literal '[VERB]' placeholder, and the resource is phrased as 'Account settings by intent' rather than a direct verb+resource.

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 provides explicit usage context by grouping actions by intent and explicitly notes a non-supported operation: 'No standalone cross/isolated margin-mode switch in v3 — see setLeverage posSide for isolated.' This points to an alternative, satisfying the when-not/alternative guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over account_overview, but the action list gives clear context.

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