get_account_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing return structure details (decimal strings, marginRate format with example, RFC3339 timestamps) and the lightweight nature of the call. This goes beyond the annotation's safety signal without contradicting it.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a compact, informative return format explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy 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?

With no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema available, the description is fully self-sufficient. It explains the key output nuance (marginRate as leverage) and the umbrella purpose, leaving no gaps for this simple read-only 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?

There are zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; the 'configured account' phrasing implies a single default account, which is a minor semantic addition.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get a summary of the configured account'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding order/trade/position lists and referencing the same summary fields as get_account, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use context ('lightest way to check balance, NAV, and margin headroom') and a when-not-to-use signal ('no order/trade/position lists'). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those lists, so it falls short of the explicit-alternative standard.

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