get_fundsRetrieve account cash balance, cash blocked by open buy orders, available funds, holdings value, and profit or loss to assess current paper-trading account state.
Cash, cash blocked by open buy orders, available cash, holdings value and profit or loss for the account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the concrete fields returned, which is useful because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about freshness, currency/unit of the amounts, or whether blocked cash reflects live open orders.
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?
One short sentence with no padding, but it is a noun-phrase fragment lacking a leading verb, so the agent must infer the action. Efficient but under-specified rather than well-structured.
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 no-param, read-only tool with no output schema, disclosing the returned fields is the right move and is done. However, the missing action verb and the absence of any scoping (currency, account selection implied only by session context) leave the definition merely adequate.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the schema is trivially complete.
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 sentence enumerates the data returned (cash, blocked cash, available cash, holdings value, P/L) 'for the account,' which implies an account-balance retrieval, but never states a verb or resource like 'retrieve account funds summary.' It also does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as get_positions or get_orders, which overlap on account-level data.
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 call this versus get_positions (which also reports holdings value) or get_orders. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.