get_holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — that profit/loss rates are decimal ratios (0.1 = 10%) — which an agent would otherwise misread, but it says nothing about default account behavior, data freshness, or empty-holdings cases.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the unit-convention caveat follows immediately. Nothing is repeated and nothing needs trimming.

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, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned (holdings plus valuation and P&L totals) and clarifies the unit of the rate field, which is the main ambiguity risk. It could do slightly more on the account default, but the schema covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%, with symbol and account_seq fully documented in the schema, including the note that specifying symbol also recalculates the summary. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: '보유 주식(국내·미국)과 평가금액·손익 합계를 조회한다' — retrieves held stocks plus valuation and P&L totals, with scope limited to domestic and US markets. This is clearly distinguishable from market-data siblings like get_prices or get_orderbook, though it does not explicitly contrast with account-related siblings such as list_accounts or get_buying_power.

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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that an account must be selected), and no explanation of when to pass symbol or account_seq. The intended usage is only inferable from the tool's purpose statement.

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