get_trader

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey a read-only operation ('Returns') and an authentication precondition, but it omits any detail about failure modes, required token scopes, or the scope of the returned metadata. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence delivers the tool's core function and is immediately front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 call, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows it receives an authenticated profile. However, with no output schema and only the vague phrase 'related account metadata', an agent is left uncertain about the exact return shape and how this differs from account-status siblings.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's mention of the trader profile and account metadata clarifies what the result refers to, which is sufficient.

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 names a specific resource ('cTrader trader profile') and a clear verb ('Returns'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It loses a point because 'related account metadata' is vague and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_account_status or get_account_list_by_access_token.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over nearby siblings such as get_account_status or get_account_list_by_access_token, nor are there any situations where it should not be used. The only hint is 'authenticated', which implies a precondition but does not direct tool selection.

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