debank_get_account_units_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the output structure (balance, stats, usage_analysis) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple informational tool, this is adequate.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences stating purpose and return values. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses bullet points for readability without extra fluff. 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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and why to use it. There is no missing critical information for this simple tool.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3 as description adds no parameter-level info beyond schema, which is fine given no parameters exist. The description instead focuses on return values.

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 states 'Check API units balance and 30-day usage from DeBank' with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('API units balance and 30-day usage'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., debank_get_chains, debank_get_user_tokens) which focus on blockchain or user data, not API consumption.

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?

Description includes usage guidance: 'Monitor your API consumption to plan usage and avoid running out of units.' This tells when to use the tool explicitly. While it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, the sibling list makes the context clear enough.

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