get_account_summaryRetrieve the logged-in Saxo user's client entity and all accounts, including AccountKey, currency, and type, to supply identifiers for subsequent tool calls.
Basic information about the logged-in Saxo user, the client entity and all its accounts (AccountKey, currency, type). Call this first: other tools take an optional AccountKey from here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the data is about the logged-in user and includes account fields, which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as auth requirements or response shape beyond the listed fields.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the usage directive is placed immediately after, making the description easy to parse and act on.
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 zero-parameter bootstrap tool, this is complete: it states what is returned, names the key field used by other tools, and explains when to call it. The annotations cover safety characteristics and there is no output schema requirement to compensate for.
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 zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 the resource: basic information about the logged-in user, the client entity, and all accounts, including concrete fields like AccountKey, currency, and type. It is clear and distinct from balance/position/order tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools in the purpose statement.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent to call this first and explains that other tools take an optional AccountKey from here. This is a strong, actionable usage directive that reduces ambiguity about sequencing and data flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.