getAssetOverview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers authentication requirements, sub-account handling, zero-balance filtering exceptions, default valuation currency, and internal service mapping. This provides substantial transparency beyond a simple query purpose, though it stops short of mentioning response format or rate limits.

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 paragraph followed by bullet-pointed notes. It is reasonably concise, fitting the key information into a compact form. The structure is clear, though the bullet points could be integrated into flowing text for improved readability. Every sentence adds value.

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 has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the high-level return content (equity breakdowns, category details, coin-level details), covers behavioral aspects like authentication and filtering, and notes defaults. While it does not detail the exact response structure, it meets the needs for a read-only overview query in a context where the return format is likely standard.

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 input schema has three parameters with zero description coverage. The description adds meaning to the `memberId` parameter (sub-account query) and notes that `valuationCurrency` defaults to USD. However, it does not explain the `accountType` parameter or its possible values. Thus, the description partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries the total asset overview for the current account, including detailed breakdowns by account type, category, and coin level. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on individual asset details or other account-querying endpoints.

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 implies usage context through notes on authentication, sub-account query behavior, zero-balance filtering, and valuation currency default. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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