get_ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the output scope ('full') and format ('plain-text'), and 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, prerequisites such as an active book/connection, or failure modes. This is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and contents are front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values in more detail. The only missing context is prerequisite state (e.g., needing a connected or created book) and an explicit read-only guarantee, but the low complexity makes this sufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The note about accounts, transactions, and prices describes the returned payload, not arguments, so there is no coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full plain-text ledger'), and enumerates contents ('accounts, transactions, prices'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_accounts, balances, or run_query; the differentiation is only implicit through 'full' and 'plain-text'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The phrase 'full plain-text ledger' implies the agent should call it when the entire ledger text is needed, but it never contrasts this with list_accounts or run_query, leaving selection mostly to inference.

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