Get Profile Units

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a raw hub read, results are returned only 'when available,' and the same server serves both mainnet and testnet. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a short dedicated network paragraph for crucial disambiguation. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple two-param read tool, the description covers the main selection pitfalls and the network ambiguity. It does not specify the exact return shape or what 'when available' means in practice, but the absence of an output schema and the low operational complexity keep this from being a significant gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the network parameter's allowed values, default behavior, and ambiguity, and it restates the address count range. It does not explain address format details, but the schema already constrains length and the required field is clear.

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 profile units for a small set of addresses and labels itself a 'Raw hub read,' which conveys the nature of the operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling read tools, but the resource and verb are specific enough that an agent can infer what it does.

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 gives clear practical guidance on selecting the network, including the default and an explicit instruction to confirm the network with the user when it is not stated. It does not discuss when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, but the network ambiguity handling is valuable usage guidance.

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