Get a trading account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety of the call is established. The description does add genuine behavioral context by promising the payload carries no secrets and is limited to accounts the agent may trade on, which matters for an agent reasoning about credentials. It still says nothing about not-found or permission-denied outcomes.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the field list comes early. The fragment lacking a verb slightly weakens clarity, but nothing needs trimming.

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 read-only single-parameter lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is close to adequate, and listing the returned facets (venue, kind, status, setup) partly compensates for the absent output schema. It remains silent on error conditions and on how the account relates to propose_order or get_venue_rules.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that the id is a 'ta_…' string. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource and enumerates what it exposes (venue, kind, status, setup), but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the action ('get') has to be inferred from the name and title. It never distinguishes this from siblings like get_venue_rules, list_positions, or get_pnl, which also return account/venue context.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a tradingAccountId discovered elsewhere), and no mention of what to do if the id is unknown or inaccessible. The phrase 'this agent may trade on' hints at scoping but does not translate into usage guidance.

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