heliusAccount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. The description only lists topics (setup, billing, etc.) without disclosing side effects, permissions, or whether actions are read-only vs destructive. For a tool with many actions (including upgradePlan, payRenewal), behavioral details are missing.

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 purpose and followed by a usage guideline. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (17 parameters, 12 action enum values, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not cover the variety of actions or the many parameters. For example, it doesn't explain that 'action' determines the specific operation, leaving the agent to guess based on enum names alone.

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 only 18%, meaning most parameters have no documentation in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond hinting at the domain. For example, it does not clarify the 'action' enum values or the purpose of 'email', 'plan', etc. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema's minimal descriptions provide.

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 states a broad domain: 'Account setup, API keys, signup, plans, and billing.' It is clear about the resource category but lacks a specific verb-resource combination. The action enum provides more specificity, but the description itself is generic. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'not per-method rate limits,' which adds context.

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 explicitly says 'Use for pricing or account state, not per-method rate limits.' This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus others (like heliusTransaction). However, it does not name specific alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, just a negative hint.

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