add_holdingAdd a precious metals purchase to your portfolio
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Product name (e.g. "2024 American Silver Eagle") | |
| metal | Yes | Metal type | |
| api_key | Yes | TroyStack API key (required) | |
| quantity | Yes | Number of pieces | |
| weight_oz | Yes | Weight per piece in troy ounces | |
| purchase_date | No | Purchase date YYYY-MM-DD (default: today) | |
| purchase_price | Yes | Price per piece in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutating operation ('Add') but does not disclose authentication requirements (api_key is required), reversibility, or any side effects on the portfolio. This is a significant gap for a write 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 concise sentence with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the action. However, it is extremely minimal for a tool with seven parameters, though this dimension rewards efficiency.
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?
The description is too sparse for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It lacks details on return values, authentication, and use cases. The parameters are covered by the schema, but overall context is incomplete.
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 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the rich 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 uses the verb 'Add' with the resource 'precious metals purchase' and destination 'portfolio', clearly conveying the action. It distinguishes from the sibling get_* tools, though it could more explicitly separate from scan_receipt.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_receipt. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where manual entry is preferable.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions (portfolio, spot prices, history, COMEX vault, coin melt, receipts). However, get_portfolio and get_analytics both report cost basis and P/L, and get_daily_brief and get_stack_signal both provide market commentary, creating mild ambiguity.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern, with nine get_* prefixed tools and three distinct action verbs (add_, chat_, scan_). Naming is consistent and predictable.
12 tools is well-scoped for a precious metals platform covering portfolio management, market data, and specialized calculations. Each tool serves a distinct function within that domain.
The server supports adding and reading holdings but lacks update/delete operations for holdings, creating a dead end for correcting or removing entries. Market data coverage is thorough, but portfolio lifecycle management is incomplete.