get_spot_funds_limit_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it defines both mode values (enforce refuses orders lacking funds; track_only records holds and permits negative balances), states the default is enforce when unset, and explains that P&L bounds, rate and order-size barriers apply in both modes. It also explicitly declares read-only scope. The only real gap is that it doesn't say what the caller needs in order to see 'visible' accounts (visibility/permission scoping).

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the middle section is a dense run-on that explains output fields (mode, stored, accountsWithoutCurrency) already covered by the output schema, so several clauses restate structured data rather than adding guidance.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response. The description goes beyond the minimum by explaining the operational meaning of each returned value, which compensates for the missing annotations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description spends its length on return-value semantics rather than inputs, which is appropriate for a no-arg read.

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 resource: 'Return the global Spot Funds limit mode and the accounts a Spot Funds P&L bound blocks for want of a currency.' That is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_limits or set_limit. It stops short of explicitly naming the nearest sibling to disambiguate against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the diagnostic framing and the closing note 'Read-only - no secrets, no order-flow control,' which tells an agent this is a safe inspection call. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_limits or when the mode would be changed via set_limit, so the agent must infer the routing.

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