get_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves account details, but does not mention read-only behavior, response format, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves the agent in the dark about operational expectations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no repetitive or unnecessary information, making it maximally 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?

For a simple get-by-address operation, the description provides a minimal but functional level of completeness. However, it does not enumerate what 'details' are returned, which could lead to uncertainty for the agent about whether the tool returns the expected data. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail about the return payload would improve completeness.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'address' with no description, and the description does not explicitly explain what format or meaning the address should have. Although the tool name and description imply the address is a Solana account address, the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, and with 0% schema coverage, it should compensate more.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('a Solana account'), with the source (Solscan) included. It distinguishes the general account details from sibling tools that focus on specific activities, transactions, or token data, though it could be more specific about what 'details' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like get_account_tokens or get_account_transactions. The description simply states what it does without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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