get_total_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the calculation methodology and use of fresh prices, but does not mention side effects, authentication, or error conditions. Since it's a 'get' operation, safety is inferred but not explicitly stated.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds relevant detail. No empty phrases or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must explain the response. It gives a high-level breakdown (symbol and account level) but omits specific fields, units, or error behavior. The detail provided is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose but not exhaustive.

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 lists two optional string parameters (request_id, idempotency_key) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention them. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate, though these appear to be generic metadata parameters.

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 this tool returns total exposure across all accounts, broken down by symbol (open order notional + base balance using daemon's fresh price) and by account summary. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_balance or get_open_orders.

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 implies usage when aggregate exposure is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, so the guidance is only implicit.

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