get_auth_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the return data structure (login, margin mode, permissions, tier) and the recommended usage pattern (once per session). However, it does not mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements, which would provide richer behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Check API key status'), details the return values, and ends with usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted information.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. However, it lacks details on error handling or session-specific constraints (e.g., what happens if called mid-session), which would enhance completeness for an authentication-related tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. However, it could have explicitly stated 'no parameters required' to reinforce this, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description compensates by explaining the tool's purpose and usage clearly.

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 specific action ('Check API key status') and enumerates the exact information returned ('login, margin mode (hedging/netting), permissions, and tier'). It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which focus on trading operations, account data, or market information rather than authentication status.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this once at session start.' This clearly indicates when to use it (at the beginning of a session) and implies when not to use it (repeatedly during the session). It also distinguishes this tool from alternatives by its unique purpose of checking authentication status, unlike sibling tools for trading or data retrieval.

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