get_risk_limits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does declare '[READ-ONLY]', which is the key safety signal. However, it says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, whether values can be unset, or rate/refresh behavior, all of which matter for a trading-account tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the read-only marker and the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compact field enumeration. The example questions are separated cleanly and none of the prose is wasted.

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 returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect from the response. It lacks any note about what happens when no limits are configured, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is largely complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension defaults to 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and directs the account scope implicitly ('for the TradeZylo account'), requiring no parameter explanation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the configured risk management rules and loss thresholds') and enumerates the exact fields returned (daily/weekly/monthly caps, max drawdown, position size, leverage, risk per trade). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the adjacent sibling get_risk_check, whose scope an agent could plausibly confuse with this one.

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 three example questions map directly onto the user intents this tool serves ('What are my configured risk limits?', 'Show my risk management rules'), which gives the agent clear triggering context. There is no explicit 'when-not' guidance or pointer to alternatives such as get_risk_check or update_limits.

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