Inspect a circle member

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial context beyond that. It discloses the data sources (read API GET endpoints or contract view fallback), the return object fields, and the distinction between a hard non-member error and a soft limits warning. This is unusually complete behavioral detail for a read tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then return shape, then error behavior. It is dense but mostly earns its space; the parenthetical endpoint and contract-view fallback detail is useful but makes the first sentence heavy. Overall it remains readable and free of obvious 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, source field, and warnings field. It covers when to call it, what it returns, and how failures are surfaced. Nothing essential is missing for a one-parameter read tool.

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 100%, and the account parameter already documents the NEAR account id or lower-case 0x address format. The description adds useful context that account ids come from x207_circle_overview and shows the account in the return shape, but it does not add significant syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. A 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 states a specific verb and resource: inspecting one circle member for status, stake, outstanding debt, and credit limit. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming x207_circle_overview for account discovery and x207_epoch_report for epoch-level amounts. It also gives the exact return shape, so the agent knows what this tool produces.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: use after x207_circle_overview has shown account ids, or before paying a member. It also names the alternative for epoch-level amounts. Error behavior is specified, including that a non-member account is an error while a failed limits lookup is only a warning.

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