get_active_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a safe read via 'Get details' and enumerates the returned values, but says nothing about behavior when no account is selected, permission requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but thin for zero annotation coverage.

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 core statement is front-loaded in a single sentence, with the example questions serving as a clearly separated usage aid. No sentence is wasted and every element aids selection or 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key returned fields (balance, equity, win rate, PnL, broker), which is enough for an agent to know what it gets back. It stops short of describing the full response shape or edge cases, but it is complete for a parameterless read 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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the call as retrieving the already-selected account, and it adds meaning by naming the fields the implicit result contains.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get details of the currently active/selected trading account') and enumerates the returned fields (balance, equity, win rate, PnL, broker). The 'currently active/selected' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_accounts or get_account_comparison, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 example questions ('Which trading account is currently active?', 'Am I currently using my funded or personal account?') give concrete context for when this tool applies. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated — it never says to use get_accounts for the full list or switch_account to change selection — so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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