account_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavior: it only counts BUY fills for USD and fees, and explains paper mode semantics (shares are net of sells). It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but the verb 'totals' implies a read operation.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, and paper mode. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or clearer separation between normal and paper mode semantics.

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 tool has 2 parameters (1 required) and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description sufficiently explains the return values and core behavior for both production and paper mode. It lacks details on the optional token_id parameter and potential side effects, but overall meets the needs for a reconciliation tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (condition_id, token_id). The description mentions 'on one market' which likely maps to condition_id but does not explicitly define either parameter or their usage. Token_id is not addressed, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'BUY-side totals of OUR account on one market' with specific fields (shares, usd, fee_estimate). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing it is the 'reconciliation source' for post-uncertainty verification, setting it apart from local bookkeeping and other market tools like 'book' or 'market'.

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 explicitly guides when to use: 'use it after any uncertainty instead of trusting local bookkeeping'. This provides clear context for appropriate usage, though it does not directly compare against sibling tools like 'account_collateral' or 'taker_fee'.

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