Get account holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format restrictions, pagination, or required prior steps. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them with additional behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and object, making it easy to parse and directly actionable for an agent.

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 simple single-parameter read-only nature, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the account must already exist or that it should be an investment account, though this is inferable from the description and parameter reference to get_accounts.

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%, so the single parameter account_id is fully documented in the schema as 'Monarch account ID from get_accounts'. The tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 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 'Get securities and positions for one investment account' clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (securities and positions) with a scoped target (one investment account). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_account_history or get_recent_account_balances, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when needing holdings for a specific investment account but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context of needing an account ID is implied by 'one investment account' and the parameter description, but no direct guidance is given beyond the core function.

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