account_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists the types of information retrieved, it doesn't describe behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the data is real-time or cached, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that lists all retrieved information types without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping related data points). Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what information is returned.

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 has no input parameters, an output schema exists, and it's a read operation, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the scope of returned data (account info, positions, portfolio type), which complements the output schema. However, without annotations and lacking usage guidelines, it doesn't fully prepare the agent for effective use, especially relative to sibling tools.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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's purpose: retrieving specific account information including status, type, available funds, daily profit, open positions, and portfolio type. It uses the Russian verb 'Получение' (retrieval) with the resource 'счета' (account), making the action and target explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'account_get_trades' or 'account_get_transactions', which likely retrieve different subsets of account data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like 'account_get_trades' (which might retrieve trade history) or 'assets_get' (which might retrieve asset holdings). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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