get_account_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only lists the content areas (balance, positions, orders) but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether orders include open/closed, potential latency, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a zero-annotation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key content areas. It is concise, front-loaded, and every phrase adds value.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return formatting. The concise list of included elements (balance, positions, orders) provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope relative to siblings. However, it lacks some nuance about the nature of 'orders' or whether it is real-time, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema already provides full coverage (100%). As per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to add beyond the empty schema.

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 retrieves a 'comprehensive account summary' including 'balance, positions, and orders', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_account_balance, get_open_positions, or get_open_orders, though the word 'comprehensive' implies a combined view.

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 implies usage for getting an account overview, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual sibling tools or mention any exclusions. There is no clear 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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