get_funds

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

The description does not contradict the openWorldHint annotation. It adds context about the specific data returned (cash, collateral, utilised margins, net value), but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as login requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. With the annotation present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 clearly states the purpose and enumerates the key components. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return categories. It could add details like currency or account type, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 there is no parameter information for the description to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no ambiguity or missing parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'available funds and margins', listing key components. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_positions and get_holdings, which deal with securities rather than cash/margins.

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 intended use is implied by the resource name and component list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, making the guidance adequate but not explicit.

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