debank_get_user_social_tool

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

The description discloses that the tool returns an error message and lists alternatives, but with no annotations, it fails to specify side effects, authorization details beyond OAuth, or behavior when functional. The limitation is transparent, but behavioral context is minimal.

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 extremely concise: a single-purpose sentence, a critical warning, and a clear parameter list. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's non-functional state (OAuth not implemented), the description adequately sets expectations by stating it will return an error. However, it lacks details on the intended social data response and pagination, leaving gaps for when the tool becomes functional.

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 adds valuable semantics: explicitly states access_token is required, lists possible values for social_type (though not in schema), and specifies limits (max 100 for limit, defaults). This compensates for the schema gap.

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 states 'Get DeBank Connect social data', clearly specifying the action (getting) and resource (social data). It distinguishes from sibling DeBank tools focusing on other domains like protocols or chains.

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 warns that OAuth is not yet implemented, implying the tool should not be used currently, but it does not suggest alternative tools or when to use it otherwise. The mention of 'available alternatives' in the return is vague.

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