ccxt_private_read

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations by specifying the scope of included operations and mentioning 'authenticated read-only', which clarifies the security context. It doesn't describe deeper behaviors like rate limits or error handling, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise, clearly structured, and free of 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, authenticated, no output schema), the description provides a clear conceptual overview and scope. It explains what types of methods are covered and confirms the read-only nature. It doesn't describe return values, but as a generic CCXT invoker, the return structure is method-dependent and not required for selection. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to choose and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all six parameters (account, method, args, params, loadMarkets, reloadMarkets). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus meeting the baseline of 3.

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: 'Invoke an authenticated read-only CCXT method using a configured named account.' It specifies the verb (invoke), resource (CCXT method), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ccxt_public_call and ccxt_private_write by emphasizing 'private read-only' and listing covered data types (balances, positions, orders, fills).

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 usage context by listing what it covers ('balances, positions, orders, fills, and private implicit GET-style endpoints'), implicitly differentiating it from public and write counterparts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, falling just short of full guideline clarity.

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