get-account-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get current account information') without adding any behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format might look like. It's minimal and lacks details needed for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get current account information', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity (a tool with one required parameter in a blockchain context) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current account information' entails, how it relates to other account tools, or what the output might contain. For a tool in this domain, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'networkName' fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even if the description lacks param info, which applies here.

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 'Get current account information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current account information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific account information is retrieved, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-balance' or 'get-delegations', which might provide overlapping or related account 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might retrieve account-related information (e.g., 'get-balance', 'get-delegations', 'get-available-rewards'), but the description doesn't specify what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others. No explicit context or exclusions are mentioned.

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