Strata account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by explicitly stating 'No signature, no session key' and 'public read', which are auth-related details not covered by annotations. It also clarifies the scope ('across every live market') and data format ('exact USD'), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('The whole account in one public read, by wallet address') followed by a clear list of contents. It is concise, with zero filler, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope and constraints.

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 tool returns a comprehensive portfolio snapshot without an output schema, the description lists the types of data returned (balances, positions, orders, fills) and specifies 'exact USD' for balances. It also sets expectations by mentioning 'across every live market'. It could optionally clarify data freshness or size limits, but for a read-only portfolio endpoint, it is sufficiently 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?

There is only one parameter, walletAddress, with a schema pattern but no description coverage (0%). The description references 'by wallet address' but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the parameter name and pattern already convey. It does not explain the address format or requirements, but the pattern is self-explanatory for those familiar with crypto addresses. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not value-adding.

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's purpose: 'The whole account in one public read, by wallet address' and enumerates the specific contents (balances, positions, open orders, recent fills) across all live markets. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'one public read' and 'no market selection', which differentiates it from market-specific tools like strata_bbo or strata_order_status.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when you need a complete snapshot of an account without filtering by market. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the phrase 'no market selection' implies it's not for granular per-market queries. The sibling tools like strata_order_status or strata_execution_status suggest alternatives exists, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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