fund_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the server auto-finds the active token and that the amount must not exceed a token limit. However, it does not mention what happens on failure, whether the action is reversible, or the result of a successful call.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key usage note. Every sentence is necessary and adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it omits the success behavior (e.g., balance update) and error conditions, which would help an agent anticipate outcomes. The schema fills in parameter details, but the overall completion is adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal extra value beyond reiterating that the token parameter should be omitted. It does not provide additional context about parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 purpose: 'Add funds to the agent's wallet.' It also specifies the unique behavior of server auto-resolving the funding token, distinguishing it from any sibling tools.

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 instructs users to 'Just pass the amount' and to omit the optional token parameter, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. No sibling tool performs a similar function, so the guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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