Get private agent ledger

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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: rows are scoped to the calling key only, entries are sanitized summaries, idempotent replays and latency are included, and fills follow paper_execution_v1 with a disclosed execution cost. Return format is left to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and scoping constraint before the execution-model detail. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence is information-rich and slightly packed.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description is complete on scoping, domain (paper trading only), and execution semantics; the main omission is any mention of the export_agent_ledger/export_run_evidence alternatives, which is a minor gap for this tool's complexity.

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 documents all 10 parameters including the nested agentTrace object. The description alludes to run/decision trace metadata but adds no filtering or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('this API key's private execution ledger') and enumerates the row categories it returns (reads, quotes, writes, rejects, idempotent replays, latency, summaries). It does not contrast itself with the close sibling export_agent_ledger, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

'Use this to audit a reproducible paper-trading run' gives clear usage context, and 'Paper trading only (virtual mUSD)' constrains the domain. However, no exclusions or alternatives are named despite there being an obvious export_agent_ledger sibling, so it stops short of routing guidance.

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