Get Account Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides useful context: it requires environment variables for authentication, and it returns specific fields (ids, types, state) for all accounts. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a zero-parameter read operation with no output schema, this is reasonable.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second gives the authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is fetched (ids, types, state), the scope (all caller's accounts), and the auth requirement. The sibling list is large, but the clear purpose makes selection straightforward.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivial and the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the account info includes, which is useful even though no parameters exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('account information') with concrete details (ids, types, state) and scope ('all of the caller's accounts'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_balances (balances) and get_account_activity (activity).

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 states a prerequisite (requires POLONIEX_API_KEY and POLONIEX_API_SECRET), which is helpful for usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to infer when to use it, given the lack of ambiguity.

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