userAssetInfoQuery

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context such as the master API key requirement and conditional coin requirement. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, rate limits, or other runtime behavior. The description is consistent with the annotations and adds some context, but not a rich amount.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by three focused bullet points. Every sentence adds relevant information, and the most important constraint (accountType required) is front-loaded.

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 the key invocation constraints for common cases, including sub-account access and UNIFIED account requirements. However, with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, it is incomplete: accountType allowed values, withBonus semantics, and any return/error expectations are missing.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does explain accountType, coin (including comma-separated format), and memberId, but it leaves withBonus completely unexplained and does not enumerate valid accountType values. This is a meaningful gap given the schema provides no parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Query coin balances across a single account type.' It also adds a distinguishing capability: querying sub UID balance with a master API key. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like getWalletBalance or accountCoinBalanceQuery, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: accountType is required, coin is required for UNIFIED accounts, and memberId is used only with a master API key. It does not mention when to prefer an alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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