Account activity

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral value: result ordering (newest first), the 2000-entry scan cap, and the truncated=true signal when the cap is hit. It omits how market scoping interacts with the range and whether auth/session state is required, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, zero filler: the first defines what the ledger contains, the second front-loads the paging and truncation contract. Everything an agent needs to avoid misreading the range parameters is stated compactly.

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 no output schema, the description sensibly describes the return shape at a high level (ordered entries, truncation flag) and explains the range/pagination tradeoff for 7 all-optional parameters. The remaining gap is entry-level content and how market/category interact with the range, which is minor rather than blocking.

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 coverage is 57%, and the description reinforces the from/to vs period exclusivity (already stated in the schema) plus the paging behavior tied to page/pageSize. It adds nothing about category, market, or the per-parameter defaults, so it does not compensate for the roughly half of parameters left undocumented in both places.

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 names a concrete resource ('Cash ledger') and enumerates exactly which entry types appear in it (deposits, withdrawals, order settlements, dividends, fees, transfers), which separates it reasonably well from siblings like get_account_orders or get_account_summary. It stops short of explicitly saying which sibling to use for order-level or summary-level questions, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied through the paging note: no date range returns one page, with from/to or period you get the full range. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_account_orders, get_realized_returns, or get_account_summary, nor any prerequisites (e.g., authenticated account context) spelled out.

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