monobank-personal-client-info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these: field-specific details (e.g., webhookUrl is empty string if unset, permissions array shows granted scopes, managedClients only present for business tokens, amounts already divided). This enriches the agent's understanding of response semantics without contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, then top-level fields, accounts, and jars are each introduced with clear bullet-like sections. Every sentence adds meaningful detail (e.g., currency code format, cashback types, conditional fields), and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It thoroughly covers all returned sections: client identity, permissions, managedClients, each account's fields, and each jar's fields, including edge cases like 'goal is 0 if no target is set'. This is sufficient for an agent to interpret the response correctly.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output structure rather than parameters, and there is no parameter confusion to resolve.

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 opens with a clear verb+object+scope: "Returns Monobank client profile: identity, token permissions, and all linked accounts and jars." It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like monobank-personal-accounts by explicitly covering the full profile including accounts and jars, not just a subset.

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 that this is the comprehensive profile endpoint, which implies use when needing identity, token scopes, accounts, and jars in one call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the detailed field listing naturally differentiates it from more focused siblings like monobank-personal-accounts or webhook tools.

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