Toss Get Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine constraint — results are scoped to whatever the configured credentials can see — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty result means when credentials have no accounts.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the credential-scoping qualifier is the only extra detail — no filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only real gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no mention of what an account record contains (e.g. account number, type), which an agent needs to chain into follow-up account-scoped calls.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. The schema correctly accepts an empty object only.

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?

“List Toss Securities accounts” is a specific verb+resource, clearly distinct from sibling resources like holdings, orders, or prices. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is meant to precede or replace, but the resource is unique enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 phrase “available to the configured Open API credentials” hints at a prerequisite/discovery role, but the description never says when to call this versus sibling account-scoped tools such as toss_get_holdings or toss_get_buying_power. Usage is only implied.

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