get_account

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing what the output includes (counts, activity, list), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions or omissions regarding side effects.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output components. No unnecessary words, though slight restructuring could improve scannability. Appropriate length for the information provided.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description adequately covers the account summary scope. It lists key output elements, though more detail on return format or limitations could be useful but not essential.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters (e.g., address lowercasing is mentioned in schema). No extra semantics added.

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 returns an 'Account summary for a wallet address' including specific components (position counts, activity, open positions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_positions' (detailed positions) or 'get_deposits' (single activity type), providing a specific verb+resource.

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 implies the tool is for a broad overview of a wallet's activity, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_positions' or 'get_borrows'. No guidance on when not to use or context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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