getAssetOverview

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

The annotations only signal read-only and open-world behavior; the description goes far beyond by documenting authentication requirements, sub-account resolution, zero-balance filtering exceptions, USD defaulting, DirectStocks merging under UTA, negative equity handling, and zero-equity filtering. These are concrete behavioral disclosures that materially help an agent predict responses.

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 longer than average, but the bullet notes are dense and each addresses a distinct behavioral edge case. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the structured notes make the details scannable. A minor deduction is warranted because some notes could be consolidated without losing information.

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?

The description covers authentication, parameter behavior, defaults, filtering rules, and key account-type exceptions—strong coverage for a complex overview tool with no output schema. It does not describe exact response field names or error conditions, but the high-level response contents and edge cases are sufficiently specified for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It meaningfully clarifies memberId as a sub-account filter, accountType as influencing which zero-balance accounts are always returned, and valuationCurrency as defaulting to USD. It stops short of listing accepted formats or values, but provides real semantic value for all three parameters.

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 action ('Query') and a clear resource ('total asset overview for the current account') and specifies three levels of returned detail. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives such as getWalletBalance or getAssetDetail.

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 notes give meaningful context about parent-sub account behavior, optional memberId filtering, and edge cases like zero-balance account filtering and UTA asset merging. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related account/asset query tools, so usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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