aptos_get_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, describe the output structure, or mention potential errors (e.g., account not found).

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple single-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the full return payload, error cases, or any network-specific requirements, making it less complete than it could be.

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%—the single 'address' parameter is already described as 'The Aptos address'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets account information with a specific focus on sequence number. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aptos_get_balance and aptos_get_account_transactions, though the exact boundaries of 'account information' are not fully elaborated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aptos_get_balance or aptos_get_resources. There are no usage contexts, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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