Who am I (CoinRithm)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (userId, keyId, scopes, agentName, agentModel) and clarifying that agentName/agentModel are null until set. It also mentions paper trading and that it is not financial advice. No behavioral contradictions.

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 four concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, explain special fields (agentName/agentModel), give usage advice, and provide important context (paper trading, disclaimer). Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

The tool has low complexity (one optional param, no required inputs) and has an output schema to describe return values. The description already covers the main return fields and adds paper trading context. It could optionally mention the agentTrace parameter's purpose, but the schema handles that. Overall, context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 one optional parameter (agentTrace) with 100% schema coverage via nested descriptions. The tool description does not mention this parameter, relying on the schema to document it. Since coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional semantic context is provided.

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 explicitly states the tool returns identity details (userId, keyId, scopes, agentName, agentModel) and advises to use it first to confirm key permissions. The name and title are self-explanatory, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling trading/account tools by focusing on identity.

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 clearly recommends using this tool first to confirm key capabilities. It also provides context about paper trading and virtual funds. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for more specific account details, though the sibling list implicitly provides other options.

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