get_holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the return content (per-symbol P&L, account summary) and the account_seq default behavior, which exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then detailing parameters. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema present, annotations available), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, parameter defaults, and optional filtering. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. A minor gap is the lack of clarification on how the account summary interacts with the symbol filter, though not essential.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: account_seq defaults to TOSS_ACCOUNT_SEQ when unset, and symbol is an optional single-holding filter. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 gets holdings/positions with per-symbol P&L and an account summary. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'holdings/positions' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_accounts, get_orders, and get_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?

The description provides parameter context (account_seq default, symbol optional filter) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Selection is implied by the name and output description, but there is no exclusion wording or reference to sibling tools.

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