get_account

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is read-only, how data is scoped, any prerequisites, or side effects. It merely names content, offering no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, efficiently naming the four key account fields. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces structural polish.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so return values don't need to be explained. However, the description lacks usage context, does not differentiate it from sibling tools, and provides minimal behavioral information, making it only minimally 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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description is not expected to add parameter detail, and it doesn't need to.

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 is a fragment ('Cash, equity, exposure and day P&L.') that lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.' It does convey the resource (account) and the fields returned, which helps distinguish it from position/limit/quote siblings, but the missing sentence structure keeps it from being fully clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_positions or get_limits. The description only lists output fields and gives no context, use cases, or exclusions.

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