account_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output data and does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe error behavior, or mention required permissions. This leaves an agent without enough behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with no filler words, which is efficient. However, it is a sentence fragment lacking a verb and provides no structural organization beyond a simple list.

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?

Although an output schema exists to define return structure, the tool still lacks guidance on the required account parameter and when to choose this tool over siblings. The description lists only three output categories and omits invocation context and failure modes, leaving the overall guidance incomplete for an agent.

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%, and the description does not explain what the required 'account' string should represent, its format, or how it maps to the returned data. The parameter name 'account' offers minimal inference, but the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 conveys the resource and output scope: account balances, configured risk limits, and open-position count. It distinguishes from siblings by listing these specific data elements, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like account_list, positions, or risk_get. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided; usage is only weakly implied by the listed contents.

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