get_account_data_from_api

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about stability and comprehensiveness, and lists return data types. This is adequate given the annotations, though no additional behavioral constraints are disclosed.

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 very concise: two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds comparative value and enumerates return data. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must cover what is returned. It lists key data points (lending positions, balances, mining rewards, health factor, etc.), providing sufficient context. A more exhaustive list would improve completeness, but 'etc.' is acceptable for a high-level description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters. The description's mention of 'Leave empty to use configured wallet' is already in the schema.

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: 'Get user account data from JustLend API.' It specifies the data source and lists returns. It distinguishes from contract queries, and the sibling context shows many get_* tools, but this one is focused on account data from the API.

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 includes a comparative statement: 'More stable and comprehensive than contract queries,' which guides when to use this tool over contract-based alternatives. However, it does not explicitly compare to other API-based siblings like get_account_summary, leaving some ambiguity.

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