debank_get_user_approvals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses returns (arrays/objects), mentions security risk, and implies read-only behavior. It could add more about rate limits or authentication, but adequately covers behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with purpose, structured into Args, Returns, Security Note, and Examples. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No wasted words.

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 both token and NFT cases, provides security context, and includes examples. Given the output schema exists and the tool has 3 params (2 required, 1 enum), the description is complete enough for effective use.

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 explains address, chain_id (with example 'eth'), and approval_type with default. It also describes return differences for token vs NFT. Some details like valid chain_id values are omitted, but overall adds significant meaning.

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 it gets user's token/NFT approvals, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like debank_get_user_tokens (balances) and debank_get_user_nfts (NFTs owned) by focusing on approvals and authorizations.

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 context (checking approvals) and examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage but lacks direct guidance.

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