trading_account

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

Description lists the output fields, giving some behavioral insight (read operation returning account info). However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions, or potential side effects. The content list helps but safety profile is implied, not explicit.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, listing key output fields without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (total margin, unrealized PnL, available balance, position list, asset details). This makes the tool's functionality complete for an agent to understand its use.

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?

Tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (no properties). Description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully covers the input side.

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?

Description clearly states 'get account information' and lists specific included fields (total margin, unrealized PnL, available balance, position list, asset details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trading_balance (likely just balance) and trading_positions (likely just positions).

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to more specific tools like trading_positions or trading_balance for subset queries.

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