account_overview

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the tool 'fans out' to multiple subresources and that 'Each section reports ok/error independently.' This is valuable behavioral context about partial failures. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or response structure, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations, so the added disclosure merits a 4.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, but the literal '[VERB]' placeholder is a structural artifact that undermines clarity. The rest of the sentence is efficient, but the placeholder prevents a higher score.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries responsibility for explaining return behavior. It mentions the sections and independent error reporting, but does not describe the structure of each section or the full response shape. For a tool with multiple optional parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains the coin filter, view mode, fields, symbol, and category parameters. The tool description adds only marginal context by referencing 'with category/symbol' for positions and fee rate, which is already in the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states it is a 'One-call account snapshot' that aggregates multiple account aspects (assets, settings, funding assets, positions, fee rate), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual resources. The verb is implied by 'snapshot' and the scope is specific, though the leading '[VERB]' placeholder is a minor artifact. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 conveys clear usage context: use this for a consolidated account overview in a single call. It also specifies conditional behavior ('with category/symbol') for including positions and fee rate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative tool or provide exclusion criteria, so it misses the top score.

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