execution_get

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and listing the settings adds clarity. However, it doesn't disclose whether defaults are included, if overrides are shown, or any error behavior for unknown accounts, which prevents a higher score.

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, well-formed sentence listing the exact settings returned. It is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words, achieving maximal conciseness.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool, the meaning of the account parameter, and any behavioral caveats, making it only minimally complete.

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 schema has one required parameter 'account' with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter or provide any context about what values are expected. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 states the tool returns specific execution-related settings (commission, slippage, liquidity, partial-fill). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like risk_get, the specific list of settings differentiates it well.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as risk_get or account_details. The description doesn't mention any contextual prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and settings list.

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