get_rms_limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only operation, and the listed fields indicate what information is returned. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as login, data freshness, or whether this reflects real-time or end-of-day values.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose and includes concrete examples. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague, but overall the description is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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-only tool with an output schema available, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what kind of data is returned and does not need to document arguments. It does not address authentication or distinguish the tool from get_margin, but this is a simple tool and the core information is present.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies, as the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter schema details.

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 ('Get') and resource ('available margin / funds (RMS limits)') and lists representative fields such as net cash, available margin, and utilised margin. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling get_margin tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given that get_margin appears as a sibling and appears to overlap in purpose, the lack of any usage direction is a meaningful gap.

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