get_net_worthNet worth: total estate gross (AUM incl. cash + real assets) minus liabilities, FX-converted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| household_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful computation details: it spans total estate gross including AUM, cash and real assets, subtracts liabilities, and is FX-converted. This clarifies scope and conversion behavior that annotations do not capture.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core concept and packs the essential formula into minimal words. There is no filler 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?
Given the low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning household_id or the currency base for the FX conversion, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.
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%, and the description does not explain household_id at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description must compensate for the missing schema documentation and fails to clarify how household_id affects the net-worth calculation or whether it defaults to something meaningful.
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 defines net worth as 'total estate gross (AUM incl. cash + real assets) minus liabilities, FX-converted,' which identifies the computed resource and distinguishes it from asset-only tools like get_household_aum. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'calculates,' but the tool name and title supply the operation.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_household_aum, get_portfolio_summary, or list_households. It implies the tool is for net-worth calculations but does not state alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers.
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 are distinct, but several pairs overlap in purpose: get_market_data and list_watchlist both return watchlist prices/signals, and the four 'brief' tools have fuzzy boundaries. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deeper context.
The dominant verb_noun pattern (get_* for details, list_* for collections) is clear and consistent in style. There are minor deviations like lookup_index_by_brand and run_technical_analysis, and several plural collections use get_, but these remain readable and mostly predictable.
39 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and represents a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The broad wealth domain explains some of the count, but many granular getters could be consolidated or curated.
The set covers the advertised wealth surface well—portfolio, risk, credit, real assets, markets, geopolitics, watchlist, goals, family, and documents—but it is read-only and lacks obvious navigation endpoints like list_portfolios or detail views for goals/alerts. Agents can retrieve most data, but not all lifecycle operations or entity enumerations are present.