계좌 당일 현황 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's scope (daily cash flow at a glance), lists the specific data fields returned, and highlights a major limitation (unavailable in simulated trading). It doesn't explicitly state the return format or that it's a read-only call, but for a no-parameter query tool, the provided behavioral context is strong.

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 three sentences with dense but purposeful content. It leads with the primary purpose, then enumerates contents, provides sibling comparisons, states exclusivity, and closes with a limitation. Each sentence earns its place, though the listing of comma-separated metrics makes it slightly heavy. Still, it's efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, which sibling tools to use for other needs, and a key environment restriction (paper trading). It could have described the display format or the meaning of D+2, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead focuses on the query's fixed scope, which is the appropriate semantic content. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and the description supports this by explaining what the single-page view includes.

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 'inquires about what happened in the account today at a glance' and enumerates specific content (sell/buy amounts, fees/taxes, deposits/withdrawals, D+2 estimates, credit/loan balances). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming get_trading_journal, get_account_holdings, and get_account_balance for related but different queries, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by stating that per-stock realized P&L should use get_trading_journal, current holdings get_account_holdings, and summary balances get_account_balance, then notes 'this is the only tool for viewing daily cash flow.' It also provides a critical exclusion: not available in simulated trading (RC9000).

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