ib_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the external dependency (local TWS/Gateway) and lists return fields, but does not explicitly disclose read-only safety or error handling behavior. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, yet it could be more explicit.

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 concise and front-loaded: a single clear verb-object sentence followed by essential details and parameter docs. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, return fields, and parameter meaning. It lacks potential error scenarios or output format details, but those are not critical for a basic account summary.

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 schema only provides a title and default for the port parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 7496 is for live and 7497 for paper trading, which is beyond schema information. This adequately compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get account summary from Interactive Brokers' and enumerates specific fields (cash balance, buying power, net liquidation value, margin info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ib_portfolio or ib_trades_history.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires TWS or IB Gateway running locally') and the port distinction between live and paper trading. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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