create_library_folderCreate a library folder, optionally nested under a parent.
Args:
name: Folder name
parent_id: Parent folder UUID (optional — omit for a root folder)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the folder can be nested under a parent or created as a root folder. This goes beyond the schema and clarifies the outcome of omitting parent_id, though it does not mention permissions or side effects.
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 exceptionally concise: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact args list. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information (root vs nested) is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.
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 create operation with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and the critical edge case of root vs nested folders. The tool's low complexity means no further context is needed.
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?
Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name' as the folder name and 'parent_id' as a parent folder UUID, explicitly stating that omitting it creates a root folder. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a library folder'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the 'library' scope and optional nesting, which differentiates it from create_library_item or create_portfolio.
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 context on how to use the parent_id parameter ('omit for a root folder'), which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Portfolio, alert, watchlist, library, journal, and search tools have clearly separated purposes with no overlapping functionality. Even similar tools like get_portfolio_statistics and get_positions provide different outputs.
The majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_portfolio, delete_library_item). However, 'finance_search' inverts the verb-noun order and 'run_deepdive' uses a less common verb, creating minor but noticeable exceptions.
31 tools is on the high side but each serves a distinct purpose across portfolio management, alerts, watchlists, library, journal, search, and bug reporting. The library subsystem alone accounts for 11 tools (CRUD + versions + move + rename + search), which is justifiable for a full document manager.
Core operations are present but several lifecycle gaps exist: no delete_watchlist, delete_portfolio, update_portfolio, update_alert, or delete_transaction. The journal and deepdive areas also lack update/delete capabilities. Agents may hit dead ends when trying to remove or modify certain resources.