Get private agent ledger

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that only rows for the calling key are returned, that it operates on paper trading with virtual funds, and details execution cost structures (taker fees, slippage, etc.). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 quite lengthy and packs many details, but the first sentence is dense with information. While every sentence adds value, the structure could be improved by front-loading the core purpose and separating operational details. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'paper trading only' mentioned twice).

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 (10 parameters, nested agentTrace object, output schema), the description covers purpose, usage scope, behavioral nuances, and parameter context adequately. It explains what the ledger contains and execution costs, but does not detail output structure (since output schema exists). Minor gaps remain in usage guidance relative to siblings.

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 input schema already documents all parameters comprehensively. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning date-range and runId filters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 explicitly states it lists the API key's private execution ledger with specific details (reads, quotes, writes, etc.), and the verb 'List' combined with the resource 'private agent ledger' clearly defines the action. The tool name and title are reinforced, and it distinguishes from siblings like export_agent_ledger by focusing on listing rather than exporting.

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 advises using the tool to 'audit a reproducible paper-trading run' and notes 'Paper trading only — virtual funds (50,000 mUSD).' It also includes disclaimers about not being financial advice. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it versus alternatives like export_agent_ledger, leaving room for clearer sibling differentiation.

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