get_my_affiliates

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 verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on return format, edge cases, or any prerequisites beyond the wallet parameter. It does not contradict any annotations and is minimally sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action and scope directly, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only list tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could optionally mention the shape of the returned data or any filters, but the low complexity means these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'wallet' with its own description 'Wallet address'. The tool description adds the ownership context ('owned by a wallet'), which provides a small semantic nuance beyond the schema, but otherwise the schema already conveys the parameter's meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'all affiliate accounts owned by a wallet', which distinctly defines its scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_affiliate_info or get_referrals. The ownership qualifier 'owned by a wallet' is precise.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when you need all affiliate accounts associated with a specific wallet. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple read-only list operation, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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