getAssetOverview

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. It does this exceptionally well, covering authentication, parent/sub-account resolution, zero-balance filtering exceptions, valuation currency default, UTA DirectStocks merging, conditional categories breakdown, negative equity handling, and final response filtering. This is far more transparent than most tool descriptions.

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 well-structured: a single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact bulleted notes. Each note conveys a distinct behavioral fact or edge case, and there is no filler, schema repetition, or redundant elaboration. The length is justified by the number of important behaviors disclosed.

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 absence of both annotations and an output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers authentication, account scoping, defaults, filtering rules, special account-type behavior, and what the response will include. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result appropriately.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains memberId as a sub-account selector, states that valuationCurrency defaults to USD, and contextualizes accountType through the zero-balance filtering rule and named account types like UnifiedTradingAccount and FundingAccount. It does not enumerate all possible accountType values or provide formats, which prevents a perfect score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query the total asset overview for the current account, including per-account-type equity breakdowns, category details, and coin-level details.' This clearly states what the tool does and its scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling asset-related tools like getAssetList or getAssetDetail, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for querying total assets of the current account, including sub-account scenarios via memberId. It even explains authentication requirements and parent/sub-account behavior. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus another, so it stops short of full exclusions/alternatives guidance.

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