account_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool validates the key, reports account identity and tier, and clarifies the downstream effects of a free tier. It does not explicitly mention side-effect freedom or failure behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a valuable usage note. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 is simple, has no parameters, and has an output schema. The description provides enough context about what it does and when to use it, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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 validates the configured API key and reports account ownership plus paid-tier status. This distinguishes it from the sibling ranking/report tools, which focus on market data rather than account state.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it: before presenting any list as complete, because free keys truncate rankings to 2 rows and produce null win-rates. This is actionable guidance that prevents misinterpretation of data.

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