get_portfolio_riskRisk metrics for one portfolio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| household_id | Yes | ||
| portfolio_id | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the resource name, such as what risk calculations are performed, what time frame is used, or any caveats about the returned metrics.
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 only five words long, with no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but as a structural matter it is efficient and easy to scan.
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?
Basic invocation is supported by the required parameters and output schema, but the description is too thin to disambiguate among several risk-related sibling tools. It does not clarify what distinguishes this tool from get_risk_dashboard, get_portfolio_drift, or get_correlations, leaving the agent to guess at selection and expected contents.
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%, so the description needed to clarify the parameters, but it only weakly maps to portfolio_id via 'one portfolio' and says nothing about household_id or how the two IDs relate. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 phrase 'Risk metrics for one portfolio' identifies the resource and indicates single-portfolio scope, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not specify what kind of risk metrics are included. It is not a pure tautology, but it does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like get_risk_dashboard or get_portfolio_drift.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_risk_dashboard, get_portfolio_drift, or get_portfolio_summary. The 'one portfolio' phrase implies a per-portfolio use case, but the description offers no exclusions or selection criteria.
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.