Ripio limits and rails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behaviorcel. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: remaining amounts, daily/monthly/annual caps, the account-wide limit, and operations/fees per rail. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 leads with the core value and adds distinct details in sequence: rail types, account-wide limit, time periods, remaining amounts, and fees. There is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only limits lookup with an output schema and only two optional enum parameters, the description covers the essential domain concepts: rails, operation types, periods, remaining capacities, and fees. The main gap is the lack of explicit parameter filter semantics, but the structured schema already conveys optionality, and the output schema covers return values.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does enumerate the rail and operation type values in prose, but it never explicitly explains that rail and type are optional filters or how the account-wide limit relates to the rail parameter. This is partial but incomplete compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clear, outcome-focused statement: 'How much the account can still deposit, withdraw or swap', and then names the exact resource: Ripio limits per rail, including bank, pix, crypto, ripio, and the account-wide limit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools about portfolios, orders, activity, transactions, prices, and trade estimates.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: checking remaining limits, caps, and fees per rail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so it stops short of full when-to-use versus alternative guidance, though the sibling tools make the intended use fairly obvious.

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