list_funds

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses return content (quota quantity/price, gross/net amount) and aggregate totals. It does not mention consent prerequisites or error behavior, but adds useful 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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, provides all needed information in a concise manner, and front-loads the primary purpose.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, parameters, and return values, but omits important contextual information such as consent requirements (siblings like start_consent exist) and any preconditions or error handling. Given the Open Finance context, this is a notable gap.

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% schema coverage, the description provides essential parameter explanations: subject_id is the user's CPF and bank is a participating bank with an enum. It compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though some details (CPF format) are missing.

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 a specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a user's investment fund positions' via Open Finance Brasil, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_variable_incomes and list_treasure_titles.

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 implies usage for investment fund positions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of list_investments or other list tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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