Get private agent ledger

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true` and `destructiveHint=false`. The description adds beyond these: it specifies data scoping ('Only rows for the calling key'), limitations ('Paper trading only', 'virtual funds (50,000 mUSD)'), and a disclaimer ('Not financial advice'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence gives the primary action and contents, the second provides usage context and disclaimer. Essential information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 objects, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose, scope, usage context, and restrictions. The output schema handles return value details, so no need to describe them. The description could briefly mention the time range filters available, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by naming the ledger content types (reads, quotes, writes) which relate to the `eventType` filter, and mentions 'optional run/decision trace metadata' connecting to the `agentTrace` object. However, it does not explain individual parameter formats or behavior beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'List this API key's private execution ledger', specifying a clear verb and resource. It enumerates the ledger's contents (reads, quotes, writes, etc.) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `export_agent_ledger` by focusing on listing vs. exporting. The scope ('Only rows for the calling key') is explicit.

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 states 'Use this to audit a reproducible paper-trading run. Paper trading only' which provides clear context for appropriate use. It implicitly differentiates from other trading tools and `export_agent_ledger`, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives.

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