Monobank client info

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds valuable operational context: a rate limit of one call per minute, cached responses within 60 seconds, queuing behavior for other calls, and that balances are in major units. It also discloses the full scope of what is returned, which is especially important given the lack of an output schema.

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?

Two compact, information-dense sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the two most important behavioral caveats (units and rate limiting). There is no filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return content, and it does so thoroughly: account details, card masks, jars, FOP clients, and balance units. It also covers caching/rate-limit behavior, making the tool safely invokable with no unexpected gaps.

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 schema already fully covers parameter semantics. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 specifies the exact resource (the token owner) and enumerates the returned data: name, accounts with balances/credit limits/IBANs/masked card numbers, savings jars, and FOP clients. This makes it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like get_currency_rates or get_statement.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving the token owner's client profile and related account data. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings or mentions any exclusions, leaving usage selection to inference.

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