get_smart_account_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the deterministic on-chain resolution, whether a Smart Account is deployed, reverse ownership lookup, and the Smart Account existence check. It does not cover error behavior or what happens when neither or both address parameters are provided, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 two sentences and immediately front-loads the tool's core purpose. Every clause adds useful information: the controller used, the forward resolution behavior, and the reverse resolution behavior. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 explains the conceptual output well even though no output schema exists. However, it never states that exactly one of xrpl_address or flare_address must be supplied, and the schema marks only network as required, making both addresses appear optional. This is a notable gap for correct invocation, and there is no mention of expected return structure beyond the conceptual resolved values.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters with patterns for xrpl_address and flare_address, but the description enriches these by defining exactly what each address resolves to: XRPL goes to deterministic Flare address plus deployment status, Flare goes to Smart Account status plus owner. It does not describe the required network parameter beyond the schema enum, but the directional semantics add real meaning beyond the raw property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve between XRPL accounts and Flare Smart Accounts via the on-chain MasterAccountController.' It clearly defines two directional behaviors and distinguishes this tool from the FTSO, fassets, and FDC sibling tools, none of which handle account resolution.

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 gives explicit usage direction: use forward resolution when you have an XRPL account (r...) and reverse resolution when you have a Flare address (0x...). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the sibling set makes the intended use clear and the directional guidance is actionable.

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