Vault Account Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the description adds value by detailing what information is returned (margin, leverage, risk metrics) and how it can inform decisions. This contextual enrichment goes beyond the annotations but doesn't contradict them. No behavioral traits are hidden.

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 with a clear lead sentence, bullet-style guidance, and examples. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly for brevity, but overall efficient.

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?

The tool has a simple input (one parameter), output schema exists, and annotations are present. The description covers purpose, use cases, and examples comprehensively. It adds context for risk management decisions. Minor gap: doesn't explain output structure despite output schema existing, but that is not required per rules.

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% with a single parameter (vault_address) already described in schema. The description does not add additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get a comprehensive overview of a vault's trading account status.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive overview of a vault's trading account status' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling vault tools like paradex_vault_balance (balance only) and paradex_vault_overview (likely different scope) by focusing on account summary with risk metrics.

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 lists explicit use cases (check account health, monitor exposure, etc.) and examples (checking margin before orders, assessing risk). This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like paradex_vault_summary or paradex_account_summary, which slightly limits guidance.

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