HTX Get Account Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add useful context about requiring API credentials and emphasizes a 'compact' representation, which aligns with the verbose parameter. However, it does not disclose behavior such as how missing sections are handled or what happens when unsupported combinations are requested.

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 two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and immediately stating the key constraints. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

With a rich output schema, six fully documented parameters, and strong annotations, the description covers the operation's basic nature well. It is less complete on selection context: an agent cannot confidently decide between this and the sibling portfolio/risk/margin snapshot tools without more explicit differentiators.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds little beyond the general 'compact' framing, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details.

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 states a clear action ('Return') and resource ('compact authenticated snapshot of balances, positions, and orders'), which conveys the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling snapshot tools like portfolio or risk snapshots, but the phrase 'balances, positions, and orders' gives enough scope to differentiate at a basic level.

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 context by noting the operation is read-only and requires API credentials, but it gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as htx_get_portfolio_snapshot or htx_get_risk_snapshot. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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