ramzinex_get_usdt_equivalent

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

The description discloses that the tool is 'read-only' and requires credentials, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not elaborate on what happens if credentials are missing, rate limits, or the exact structure of the response (though output schema may cover that). Without annotations, the description carries the burden and is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise: one sentence for the main purpose, followed by a Persian translation, credential requirement, endpoint mapping, and parameter explanation. No unnecessary words, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the endpoint, and parameter usage. However, it could be more explicit about when to prefer this over similar tools, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

The only parameter 'instance' is described as 'Configured instance to use (default when omitted).' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition, which only lists string|null and default null. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates minimally. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get the total account value expressed in USDT (read-only).' This provides a specific verb and resource, and the 'read-only' qualifier adds precision. The sibling tool 'ramzinex_get_rial_equivalent' suggests a similar tool for IRR, so the USDT focus distinguishes them effectively.

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 mentions 'Requires configured credentials' but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ramzinex_get_available_balance' or 'ramzinex_get_total_balance'. It does not state when not to use it or provide explicit usage context.

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