get_account_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions 'current user' (implying authentication context) and lists the data categories, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific authorization scopes, or any rate-limit or side-effect considerations. The description carries only a minimal burden for a simple getter, but still lacks meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the verb itself.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without waste. It includes just enough detail (wallets, balances, settings) to clarify the scope, and every word earns its place.

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, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the subject (current user) and the major data categories returned. It could go further by stating that this is an aggregate or high-level endpoint, especially given the many sibling tools, but the current text is sufficient for most use cases.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the rubric, 0 params merits a baseline of 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and focuses on the returned data scope.

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 function: 'Get the current user account information including wallets, balances, and settings.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account information'), and the 'including' clause distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like get_wallets or get_wallet_balance.

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 phrase 'current user account information' implies this is for a high-level account snapshot, and the inclusion of wallets, balances, and settings suggests use when multiple account facets are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like get_wallets or get_account_limits, nor any stated exclusions.

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