Toss Get Accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list', implying a read-only operation, but omits details about authentication requirements, rate limits, potential side effects, or whether the accounts returned are cached or live. No annotation exists to compensate.

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 of 10 words with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides no hint about what data the returned accounts contain (e.g., account numbers, balances, types). Without that context, an agent cannot determine if this meets its needs or how to use the output with sibling tools.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. It correctly implies no additional input is required.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Toss Securities accounts' with a qualifier about configured credentials. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like toss_get_holdings (which lists holdings) and toss_get_buying_power (which lists buying power).

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 vs alternatives such as toss_get_holdings or toss_get_stocks. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., need to configure credentials first) or whether this is typically the first step in a workflow.

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