get_holdings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only' and scopes behavior to one account, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors, authorization requirements, or behavior for invalid account_seq values, leaving some behavioral expectations implicit.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one clear purpose sentence plus one short parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, the account scope, the read-only nature, and the parameter source. It could be slightly richer in explaining when to prefer this over related tools like get_accounts or get_buying_power, but nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that account_seq is 'the numeric accountSeq returned by get_accounts().' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property and tells the agent where to obtain the value and what type to expect.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get portfolio summary and per-symbol positions for one account.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accounts, which lists accounts, and get_buying_power, which focuses on available funds.

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?

The description clearly indicates the tool is used for a single account's holdings and tells the agent that account_seq comes from get_accounts(). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the one-account scope and read-only labeling provide enough context for typical use.

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