get_my_agent_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the API key requirement and the types of information returned, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior, rate limiting for the call itself, or whether the API key is used in headers or parameters. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds the API key requirement without redundancy. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return contents (agent profile, token creation count, remaining rate limits). For a simple getter with no parameters, this is largely sufficient. It could be more detailed about the profile structure or format, but the core functionality is well covered.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-param tools. The description adds context by mentioning the required API key, which is not a schema parameter but an environmental prerequisite, giving agents extra operational guidance.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves the agent's profile, token creation count, and remaining rate limits. The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource is 'your agent info', and the scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tokens or get_token which focus on token lists or individual tokens.

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 when to use this tool (when you need your own agent details and rate limits) and includes a prerequisite (DUMBMONEY_API_KEY must be set). However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_tokens or check_earnings, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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