get_account_detailsFetches detailed information for a specific account using its account ID, enabling direct retrieval of account-level data from Ghostfolio.
Get details for a specific account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Account ID to retrieve details for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the single-account scope and discloses no additional traits such as auth requirements, pagination, or response size caveats.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation. Slightly generic wording means it does not add much structural value beyond the title, but it is nonetheless concise.
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 the one required parameter, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, this is mostly complete for invoking the tool. However, it does not disambiguate which 'details' are covered relative to sibling endpoints, so an agent may need to inspect schemas to choose correctly.
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 100%, so the input schema fully documents account_id. The description repeats that the account is specific but adds no format, validation, or value semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific account'). It accurately states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling account endpoints such as get_accounts or get_portfolio_details.
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?
There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_account_balances, get_portfolio_details, or get_accounts. The phrase 'for a specific account' hints at scope, but the description does not state exclusions or decision rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.