get_account

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by listing the specific financial metrics returned, providing context beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which would enhance 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, efficient sentence that lists all relevant metrics without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Get' and immediately specifies the resources, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (0 parameters, read-only annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is retrieved, but without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format or structure. For a financial tool, more context on data units or interpretation could improve completeness.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by listing the metrics retrieved, adding meaningful context without redundant parameter information. A baseline of 4 is justified as no parameters exist to document.

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 verb 'Get' and specifies the exact financial metrics retrieved (balance, equity, margin, free margin, unrealized P&L, leverage), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_history' or 'get_positions' that might also retrieve account-related data, preventing a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_auth_status' for authentication checks or 'get_history' for historical data, leaving the agent without usage context.

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