get_account_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as a read operation ('Get'), lists output fields, and notes the auth requirement. However, it does not discuss rate limits, potential errors, or what happens if the API key is invalid or missing. It is adequate but not detailed.

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, well-organized sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the included fields without extraneous words. Every part contributes useful information, making it concise and efficient.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields, providing sufficient context for the agent. The auth requirement is also specified. For a simple, parameterless tool, this covers all necessary information for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides full coverage. The description adds no further parameter detail, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. The baseline score of 4 is justified as there is no need for additional parameter semantics.

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 the authenticated user's account summary and lists specific fields (agent wallet address, closed trades, etc.). It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (account summary), and distinguishes from siblings like get_portfolio and get_agent_wallet by indicating the summary includes multiple aggregated pieces of data.

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 mentions the requirement for PEAR_API_KEY, implying authentication context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar siblings like get_portfolio or get_health. There is no guidance on alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the listed fields.

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