get_account

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate those. The description adds context by listing the info types, but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or the effect of empty results. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and lists the key subcategories efficiently. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

While the description provides a good high-level summary, it does not address conditional parameter usage (e.g., exchangeId only for balances) or pagination hints. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. For a tool with 7 parameters and conditional logic, the description could be more helpful, but the schema details compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for each parameter are detailed, so the description's lack of additional parameter info is acceptable.

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 the tool retrieves account information and lists four specific subcategories (balances, exchanges, globalVariables, supportedExchanges). The verb 'get' and resource 'account information' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_bot or get_deal, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios. The usage is implied by the name and subcategories, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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