avanza_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that this is a read-oriented reporting tool and names the consolidated categories returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the output shape, whether any session/live state is affected, or whether authorization is required.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The main purpose comes first, followed by parenthetical specifics that clarify scope without bloating the text.

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 status-reporting tool with only optional session-scope parameters and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned concept areas. It could be more complete by detailing the status values or whether live and paper contexts are both covered, but the core invocation context is clear.

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 input schema documents both parameters completely, including the legacy alias relationship and multi-session routing intent. The description adds no parameter-level insight, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific action ('Return consolidated... status') and resource ('MCP safety/capability status'), with useful subcategories: paper/live guards, account context, and tool availability. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with avanza_status or other status-like tools.

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 phrase 'for automation loops' implies target usage, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over avanza_status, data_source_status, or tv_auth_session_status. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing conditions.

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