cap_account_preferences_get

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get' without clarifying that the operation is read-only, safe, or requires specific permissions. For a simple getter, minimal disclosure is acceptable, but the complete absence of safety cues reduces transparency.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. No superfluous words; front-loaded with the key verb 'Get'. It is optimally concise for a simple read operation.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the purpose. It does not explain the output structure, but the presence of an output schema relieves the description of that duty. It could mention the scope (e.g., current account) but is largely complete for the context.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline score is 4 when no parameters exist. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it could still mention that no parameters are required, which it does not. Still, baseline holds.

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 retrieves account preferences with specific examples (hedging mode, per-asset-class leverage). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'cap_account_preferences_set', though the verb 'get' implies read-only usage. Overall, purpose is clear but missing explicit differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cap_account_preferences_set'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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