avanza_instrument_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Read', implying a safe read operation, but does not disclose aggregation behavior, default include_raw=true, filter semantics, raw output behavior, or any side effects. For an 11-parameter tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the core action and every major data category with zero filler. It is appropriately concise for a high-level tool summary.

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?

Despite high complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides only a high-level inventory. It does not explain return shape, how filters interact with the listed data groups, or how this relates to the many 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?

Schema description coverage is only 18%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It never explains account_id, orderbook_id, to/from/date ranges, changed_since, include_raw, or the transactions_from/to pair, leaving the agent unable to correctly construct queries.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read') and a clearly bounded resource ('one instrument's ... state'), then enumerates the aggregated facets: quote, position, stops, open orders, transactions, and protection summary. This distinguishes it from narrower siblings like avanza_instrument_stoplosses and avanza_instrument_transactions.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this aggregate tool versus the many sibling tools that cover individual facets. The description implies a one-stop read for a single instrument but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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