get_account_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: data comes from the TronGrid indexer and may have slight delays compared to on-chain state. This transparency about data freshness is important for user expectations and goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence immediately states what the tool does, and the second sentence adds a necessary caveat about data delays. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It enumerates the key data categories (TRX balance, TRC20 balances, frozen resources, votes) and notes the data source and potential staleness. This is sufficient for a read-only info tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about the response structure.

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%, and each parameter (address, network, onlyConfirmed) has a clear description. The tool description does not add param-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does set context by listing the data categories returned, which indirectly clarifies the purpose of the address parameter. This aligns with the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive account information'), and enumerates the exact data categories (TRX balance, TRC20 balances, frozen resources, votes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_token_balance, which are narrower in scope.

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 clear context: it is for comprehensive account data sourced from the TronGrid indexer. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5. The 'comprehensive' framing implies it is for broad overviews rather than specific queries.

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