dzengi_get_account

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement that the call does not change account state is consistent but largely redundant. It adds a little context by specifying 'signed account' permissions, but it does not disclose response behavior, authentication requirements, or any quirks beyond what annotations already cover.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target resource, and the non-mutating nature of the call in under fifteen words, which is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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?

This is a simple read-only operation with one optional boolean parameter and strong annotations, so the description covers most of what an agent needs. The only real gap is the undocumented showZeroBalance parameter, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 needed to clarify showZeroBalance, but it never mentions the parameter. The name is suggestive, but whether zero-balance entries are included by default or only when true is left ambiguous, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema field name and type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('signed account permissions and balances'), and it explicitly states the operation does not change account state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with positions, orders, trades, or market data.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need the signed account's permissions and balances without mutating anything. It does not name an alternative tool or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the placement among getter tools makes the intended usage evident.

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