Post Instances Customers Virtual Accounts

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

Annotations only declare write/open-world/non-idempotent; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — deposits always process and deliver at least $0.01 on-chain, and partner fees are taken only from the remainder after that. It still omits whether creation triggers KYC/onboarding checks or what the response contains.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph is single-topic, but roughly two-thirds of the text is fee-schedule detail (billing_fee_amount vs transaction_fee_amount) that dominates over describing the call itself. It is dense rather than efficient.

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 write tool with nested request bodies, no output schema, and only half its parameters documented, the description should cover the required inputs and post-creation state. It covers behavior well but leaves the agent without guidance on wallet linkage requirements or the created object's shape.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description adds some meaning, notably that partner_fee_id is optional and deducted after the minimum delivery, and it implicitly frames banking_partner (ACH/wire/RTP) and token. It says nothing about blockchain_wallet_id, sole_proprietor_doc_type/file, the bre_b nested object, or the Idempotency-Key parameter.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Creates a virtual account') plus its core behavior (USD deposits auto-converted to stablecoins sent to the linked wallet). It is distinguishable from the Get/Put siblings by the verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to create a virtual account versus using the existing GetV1InstancesCustomersVirtualAccounts/Put...ById tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a blockchain wallet must already exist) are given. The only conditional logic present concerns fee thresholds, not tool selection.

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