Account View

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: accounts are privacy-hidden, and a privacy-empty result returns an honest error dict rather than an API failure. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent interpret unexpected results correctly.

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 and information-dense, front-loading the core purpose before detailing data options and a usage example. Minor typo ('tapi') and a slight run-on structure prevent a perfect score, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only account tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, default values, privacy behavior, and error semantics. It does not discuss invalid `data` values or exact address requirements, but the output schema and remaining context make the tool sufficiently usable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates well by enumerating the valid values for `data`, stating the default (`balance`), and giving an address example. Address format is only hinted at via the example, but overall parameter meaning is substantially clarified.

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 resource ('account') scoped to 'ANY address' on Aster Chain, and explicitly names the underlying RPC methods (aster_getBalance, aster_openOrders, aster_userFills). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling market-data tools such as order_book and trades.

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?

It states clear usage context: keyless account reads for any address, with distinct data modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the domain is obvious from the sibling list, and the description leaves little ambiguity about the tool's role.

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