create_virtual_account

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it mentions the automatic conversion and payout capability, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not cover other important aspects like permissions required, rate limits, irreversibility, or error states. The description adds some value beyond the schema but leaves significant 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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the main action and a key feature (conversion/payout). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it easy to scan. 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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an account ID or status), does not detail the behavior of the deposit handling modes beyond the auto_payout cases, and does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist). Significant context is missing for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description provides additional context (e.g., 'receive fiat deposits' and 'convert to crypto') that contextualizes parameters like 'sourceCurrency' and 'destinationAddress', but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 specifies the tool's purpose: creating a virtual bank account for receiving fiat deposits with optional automatic conversion and payout. It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('virtual bank account'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_virtual_account' and 'deactivate_virtual_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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'create_virtual_account' vs 'update_virtual_account'). It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a customer must already exist, or when not to use it (e.g., if a virtual account already exists for the customer).

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