Toss Get Holdings

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by disclosing that the accountSeq requirement is waived by an environment variable. However, it says nothing about what a holdings record contains or how the response is shaped, leaving the caller to guess.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource fetch, with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that the second sentence's config caveat reads as unexplained.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is barely sufficient: it never describes the returned holdings, never explains the symbol filter, and leaves the required-vs-optional accountSeq tension for the agent to resolve against the schema.

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 coverage is only 50%: accountSeq is documented in-schema while symbol has no description at all, and the description does not explain that symbol filters holdings to a single instrument. Worse, the description's 'accountSeq is optional' conflicts with the schema's required list, which the text neither explains nor resolves.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get account holdings') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like toss_get_accounts or toss_get_orders. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only usage guidance is conditional: accountSeq is optional when TOSSINVEST_ACCOUNT is configured. There is no statement of when to call this versus toss_get_accounts (which the schema itself points to) or what the tool is appropriate for beyond the name.

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