Transfers cash between your Fidelity accounts and submits immediately; confirm source, destination, and amount first because no dry run is available.
Move cash between two of the user's Fidelity accounts. Has no dry run: it submits immediately, so only call after the user confirmed from, to and amount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Dollars | |
| to_account | Yes | ||
| from_account | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: no dry run, submits immediately, irreversible-by-implication. It omits auth/login prerequisites, whether the transfer can be reversed or cancelled, and what a failure looks like.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the irreversible/high-stakes warning is front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a 3-param financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and the human-confirmation gate, which is the core risk surface. It leaves auth prerequisites and result semantics unaddressed, minor gaps given the tool's narrow shape.
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 coverage is only 33% (only 'amount' is documented, as 'Dollars'). The description names the three parameters, which confirms what the confirmation step must cover, but adds no format guidance for from_account/to_account identifiers, leaving those parameters undocumented in both places.
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 concrete verb and resource ('Move cash') plus scope ('between two of the user's Fidelity accounts'), which is enough to distinguish it from order-placement siblings like fidelity_place_order. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so the differentiation is implied by 'cash' rather than spelled out.
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?
Gives a clear precondition: call only after the user has confirmed from, to and amount. That is real when-to-use guidance for a money-moving tool. It does not name an alternative (e.g., stage-then-execute via fidelity_stage_order) or state what to do if the user has not confirmed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.