octav_list_virtual_usersLists virtual users on a Pro account, returning each virtual: address, type, and label for balance-tracking or CEX-linked accounts.
List the virtual users on the account (balance-tracking or CEX-linked accounts managed in Octav Pro), with their virtual: address, type, and label. Requires Pro. Costs 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds two non-obvious operational facts the agent cannot get elsewhere: a Pro entitlement gate and a 1-credit cost. It also describes the shape of each returned entry (virtual:<id> address, type, label), which goes beyond the 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the resource definition, output fields, and access/cost constraints without any redundant restatement of the tool name. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
With no input schema, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the remaining burden is access conditions and return shape — both covered (Pro requirement, credit cost, per-entry fields). Only minor gaps remain: no indication of ordering, pagination, or what an empty account returns.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies the listing is account-scoped rather than parameterized.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the virtual users on the account') and defines what a virtual user is (balance-tracking or CEX-linked accounts in Octav Pro). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, octav_get_virtual_users_portfolio, but the resource definition makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 'Requires Pro' note implies a precondition but gives no alternative for non-Pro accounts, and there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus octav_get_virtual_users_portfolio (which returns holdings for the same objects). Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.