get_net_worthWhat the household is worth, at the width you ask for: scope='estate' (default) is AUM plus real assets minus liabilities; 'aum' is investable securities and cash only; 'allocation' breaks that book down by asset class. FX-converted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | estate | |
| household_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"get_net_worthOutput"New value: +"get_net_worthDictOutput"Input schema / properties / scopeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "estate",
+ "title": "scope",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra disclosure of FX conversion and scope composition is meaningful. It adds nuance not in the annotations without contradicting them.
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 dense sentences deliver the core behavior, scope options, defaults, and FX behavior with no filler. The colon-and-semicolon structure keeps related alternatives together.
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 two-parameter, no-required-args getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key decision (scope) and a hidden behavior (FX conversion). Only the implicit household_id semantics keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.
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 description fully defines the 'scope' parameter's values and default. It says nothing about 'household_id', which has no schema description at 0% coverage, leaving the agent to infer that it selects the target household.
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-resource pair: returns household net worth. The scope breakdown ('estate', 'aum', 'allocation') makes the tool's purpose concrete, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling get_* tools beyond being unique.
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?
Provides clear context on how to choose scope, including which is default and what each returns. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to duplicate net-worth functionality.
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.