debank_get_user_net_curve_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the address must start with '0x' and describes the return values (time series with summary statistics), but does not discuss rate limits, data freshness, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavioral traits are adequately implied but not richly detailed.

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 structured with a main purpose sentence, a supporting sentence, and then a clear list of arguments and returns. It is concise without wasted words, though the argument list could be slightly more compact. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple tool (3 parameters, 1 required) and existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter details, and return value structure (time series with summary statistics). An agent can correctly invoke the tool and understand the output without additional information.

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 compensates well by explaining each parameter: address is required and must start with '0x', chain_id is optional for a single chain, chain_ids is optional for multiple chains. This adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the tool retrieves 24-hour asset value trends from DeBank, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user's 24-hour asset value trends'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch other user data like tokens or history, as it focuses on time-series portfolio performance.

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 using the tool (track portfolio performance over 24 hours) and explains the parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusion criteria or mention of related tools.

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