ibkr_account_summary

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

No annotations provided; description mentions that metrics are grouped by currency, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any potential side effects, though implied.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with key info. No extraneous content. Efficiently communicates purpose and output structure.

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 output schema present, description does not need to detail return format. Lists key metrics and mentions grouping by currency, which is sufficient for this zero-parameter 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter details but is not needed; baseline score for 0 params is 4.

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 summary' and lists specific metrics (net liquidation, cash, margin, buying power, P&L). Differentiates from siblings like ibkr_positions or ibkr_quote.

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?

Implicit usage context is clear as a read operation for overall account health. Does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but sibling tool names provide sufficient differentiation.

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