ibkr_account_summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about the specific summary metrics returned, but does not disclose behavioral nuances like how group aggregation works or how tags affect the response.

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, front-loaded sentence with concrete examples. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant framing or filler.

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?

For a read-only tool with two optional, well-documented parameters, the description plus annotations cover the essential calling context. Although there is no output schema, the listed examples and default tags give a clear sense of the return content.

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 100% and both tags and group have descriptive defaults, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description's examples align with tags but add little beyond what the schema already states.

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-resource pairing: 'Return account summary values', and clearly names the kind of data (net liquidation, cash, buying power, margin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ibkr_positions or ibkr_open_orders without ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ibkr_accounts or ibkr_positions. The description states what it returns, but not when it should be preferred or when another tool is more appropriate.

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