get_connected_exchanges_and_wallets

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return type (list of exchanges with details) but omits whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 very concise—only three sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information (purpose, parameter meaning, return description), with no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (albeit not shown), the description need not detail return fields further. It already explains the return type and covers the one parameter. However, it could improve by clarifying when to use each response_filter value.

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%, so the description must add value. It does so by specifying that response_filter accepts 'full' or 'display' and controls detail level, which goes beyond the schema's bare string type with a default.

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 'Get' and the resource 'all connected exchange accounts and wallets', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_account_info (likely for a single account) or get_dca_bot_list. The resource is unique and well-defined.

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 like get_account_info or get_balance_history_data. There are no exclusions, context descriptions, or recommendations, leaving the agent without decision support.

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