nano_account_info

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 mentions retrieval of information but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and details without waste. Every part earns its place by specifying what is retrieved and the included data points.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks completeness for more advanced needs, such as explaining return values or behavioral aspects, which could be important in a broader context.

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%, with the parameter 'address' documented as 'Nano address/account to get information about.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Nano account/address') with specific details about what information is returned ('balance, representative, and frontier block'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'block_info' (which retrieves block information) and 'nano_send' (which sends transactions).

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 implies usage by specifying 'specific Nano account/address,' suggesting it's for querying individual accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'nano_my_account_info' (which might retrieve info for a predefined account) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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