get_account_summary

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. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the output. For a financial tool, this lack of detail on security and performance is a significant 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get account-level summary') and lists specific metrics without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and clear output focus.

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 (simple read operation with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and key metrics but lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling, which is partially mitigated by the output schema handling return values.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account-level summary'), listing key metrics like total balance, unrealized PnL, margin ratio, and positions count. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balance' or 'get_positions', which might provide overlapping or related data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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. With siblings such as 'get_balance' and 'get_positions' that might offer similar or complementary information, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an AI agent choose appropriately.

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