add_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that omitting credentials results in public/read-only mode and that secret fields are never returned. It does not mention mutation side effects or permissions, but the added context is valuable.

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 primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful information without waste.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (mode and secret handling) but omits return values, error conditions, and details for other parameters. It is minimally viable but lacks depth for a complete understanding.

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 0% and only api_key/api_secret are explained in the description. Other parameters like label, tags, market, request_id, and idempotency_key are left undocumented, so the description insufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('ekler' = adds) and the resource ('spot hesap' = spot account), making it obvious this creates an account. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts and remove_account.

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 provides clear context on when to omit api_key/api_secret (for public/read-only mode) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, this is a unique add operation, so ambiguity is low.

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