Check eToro connection

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial value beyond them: it discloses side effects ('two small read requests and places nothing'), a security guarantee ('never key values'), the masked account reference, the server mode with its caps, and whether the client can prompt for confirmation. That is rich behavioural context an agent needs before trusting the result.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerates the checks and the return shape. The second sentence is dense and long, packing four return elements plus a security note, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value — and it does, listing per-check results, the masked account reference, server mode/caps, and prompt capability. The only missing piece is prerequisite context (when this should be run, what 'configured' means in practice).

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that inputs are external configuration (the 'configured API keys' and 'configured environment') rather than call arguments, which prevents an agent from hunting for parameters that do not exist.

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?

Names a specific verb (verifies) and a specific resource (the API keys/environment behind the configured connection), and spells out exactly what is checked: authentication, environment, permissions, and account-to-environment match. No sibling tool in the list performs a connectivity/diagnostic check, so it is unmistakable among the portfolio, order, and instrument tools.

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?

Usage is only implied — the phrase 'makes two small read requests and places nothing' signals this is a safe, cheap call worth running before real work, but the description never says when to call it (startup? before trading?) or when to prefer it over just calling etoro_get_balances and observing failure. Adequate but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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