get_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Read' implies non-mutating behavior, and the prerequisite 'returned by get_accounts' adds context. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication, or response format beyond stating it returns balances and optional positions.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's purpose, the prerequisite relationship with get_accounts, and the optional positions parameter. Since there is no output schema, it gives a high-level indication of return data ('balances and optional positions'), though it omits details on error handling and exact response structure.

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 that account_hash is 'one account hash returned by get_accounts' and that positions are optional (corresponding to include_positions). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('balances and optional positions') for a single account hash. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_accounts by stating the hash comes from that call, making the tool's scope clear.

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 phrase 'returned by get_accounts' establishes a clear prerequisite and implies when to use this tool (after retrieving account hashes). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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