get_holdings

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

Annotations already cover the read/write safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses merge behavior (native + KRW), that 'raw' returns unmerged broker payloads, and that rows are appended to a local ledger with no broker writes. It stops short of noting rate limits or freshness/latency.

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 output is front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameter nuances following in compact clauses. Dense and largely waste-free, though the multi-line enumeration is slightly heavier than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be spelled out, and the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: merge basis, the three fidelity levels, and the ledger side effect. Adequate for a 3-param 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three params: it enumerates the account values (including the 'toss:primary' label format) and fully explains the three detail_level modes. include_cash is only gestured at ('plus cash') and its toggling is not explained.

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 resource (current positions/cash) and its merge semantics (merged per symbol in native currency and KRW). This clearly separates it from get_crypto_positions and get_transactions, though it never names a sibling explicitly to draw the boundary against get_portfolio_summary.

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?

Usage is only implied through the account and detail_level value descriptions; there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y'. An agent can infer which detail level fits, but the choice between this and get_portfolio_summary / get_crypto_positions is left unstated.

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