get_trading_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' clearly marks this as read-only, and the bullet list tells the agent exactly what kind of data to expect. For a zero-parameter getter this is sufficient; missing permission or staleness caveats are not critical here.

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 concise opening sentence is followed by a scannable four-item bullet list. Every line adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 no-parameter, read-only configuration getter with an output schema, the description is complete: an agent knows the purpose, the exact returned fields, and that no input is needed. No important calling information 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the call surface. The description adds no parameter documentation, which is unnecessary; the baseline of 4 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 opens with a specific verb and object — 'Get current trading configuration and risk limits' — and then enumerates four concrete return values. No sibling tool covers configuration, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 intended use is implied by the name and the return list: retrieve account-wide config caps and paper-trading status. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over related tools such as get_trading_account or get_positions, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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