config.dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists what data is returned, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any potential limitations (e.g., data freshness, caching, or authentication requirements), leaving some gaps.

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 consists of two sentences that are efficient and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first explains functionality, the second clarifies usage and means of invocation.

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 simple parameterless tool that returns an overview, the description fully covers what it does and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the listed data items (budget usage, P&L, trades, watchlist, monitor state) sufficiently set expectations.

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 zero parameters, and the description states 'No parameters needed,' which is sufficient. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no further parameter semantics, so this score is appropriate.

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 provides a comprehensive dashboard with specific data: budget usage, P&L, trades, watchlist, and monitor state. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as a dashboard, differentiating it from sibling tools like config.history or portfolio.get.

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 notes 'No parameters needed' and advises to use this for a 'quick overview of your trading activity.' It provides clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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