get_portfolioGet account-level balances, equity, buying power, positions, and Web3 wallet holdings across connected brokers and wallets. Use get_positions when you only need normalized open exposure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| wallets | No | ||
| broker_accounts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionPrevious value: -"Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields."New value: +"Structured result. Error responses include error and message."Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "broker_accounts": {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "wallets": {
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope fact that it aggregates across multiple connected brokers and wallets, but says nothing about auth/permission requirements or pagination/limits. This is adequate but modest value beyond the annotations.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the resource scope front-loaded and the routing hint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose. With read-only annotations covering safety, a clear scope statement, and explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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 (Get) and resource (portfolio), then enumerates exactly what it returns: account-level balances, equity, buying power, positions, and Web3 wallet holdings across brokers and wallets. It also differentiates from the sibling get_positions, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative (get_positions) and the condition that selects it ('when you only need normalized open exposure'). This tells the agent both when to use this tool and when to route elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.