mx-query-account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Query' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, cost, error behavior, or whether historical timestamp queries behave differently. For an 8-parameter network-facing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope come first. It is efficient, though the trailing network parenthetical is slightly redundant with the schema enum.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by naming the major return categories (balance, nonce, transactions, guardian status) and the supported networks. Combined with 100% schema coverage for all 8 params, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the exact return shape and flag interactions remain implicit.

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 every parameter including the network enum and the with* booleans is already documented in the schema. The description's enumeration of balance/nonce/transactions/guardian status loosely maps to some flags but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Query) and resource (MultiversX account information) and enumerates the data categories returned — balance, nonce, transactions, guardian status. It is clearly distinct from the only sibling, mx-sdk-dapp-guide, but it never explicitly differentiates itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(mainnet, testnet, devnet)' and 'for any network' imply the tool covers all networks, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool named.

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