get_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key traits: it is read-only, exposes no secrets, and cannot affect order flow. It also documents the time unit (windowMs in milliseconds). Missing are permission/auth requirements, but the safety profile is genuinely informative.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the optional filter and safety note; nothing is padded. The clause 'each barrier has the fields set_limit takes, the rate window as windowMs in milliseconds' is slightly compressed but each part carries information.

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?

An output schema exists and only one parameter is in play at full coverage, so the description need not enumerate return fields. It adds the conceptual shape of the result and the read-only guarantee, which is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'account' parameter is already documented as an optional filter whose omission returns all barriers, so the description largely restates the schema. It adds no syntax or format detail for the account code itself.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Return risk barriers and P&L-bound currencies'. Naming set_limit as the write counterpart gives implicit sibling differentiation, though it never directly contrasts with other read tools like get_account_state or get_spot_funds_limit_mode.

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?

'Optionally filtered by account; omit to return all barriers' gives a usage condition, and pairing the barrier fields with set_limit implies a read-before-write workflow. But there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus its many read siblings.

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