account_activity

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It lists content types but does not disclose behaviors like pagination via 'limit', date filtering via 'start'/'end', or how 'activity_type' filters the results. As a read-only query tool, no side effects are implied, but behavioral details are almost entirely absent.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key concept ('Unified account') and lists content types efficiently.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain how to filter by date range or activity type, mention pagination, or differentiate when to use this aggregated tool over its siblings. The output schema covers return shape, but usage context remains underdeveloped.

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. It provides vocabulary for the 'activity_type' parameter by enumerating example types (fills, orders, etc.), and 'unified account' suggests the 'account' parameter. However, it does not elaborate on 'start', 'end', or 'limit', though their names are fairly self-explanatory.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a unified aggregation of account activity types (fills, orders, transfers, dividends, splits, option events). It distinguishes from siblings by covering multiple event kinds in one tool, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' making it slightly implicit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'orders' or 'execution_get'. The description does not state that this is the go-to for a consolidated activity view, nor does it mention exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.

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