Account & balances

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already establish that this is a safe external read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the default-to-own-account resolution behavior, but omits caching/freshness of balances, rate limits, and parameter precedence when several identifiers are passed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the identifier behavior. The field enumeration is dense but earns its space by telling the agent what it will receive.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned metrics, which is the right call. Only the interaction between account_id, sub_account_id, and wallet_address remains underspecified for a tool with zero required parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the 'no keys needed' note for wallet_address. The description reinforces the default-own-account and public-lookup semantics but adds no precedence or conflict rules beyond the 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?

States a specific resource (account balances and margin) and enumerates exactly which figures are returned, which is unusually concrete. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like strike_get_positions or strike_get_portfolio, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear usage context: no argument defaults to your own account, and any public account is reachable via wallet address. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over strike_get_positions or strike_get_portfolio, and says nothing about what happens if multiple lookup parameters are supplied.

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