list_real_assetsReal assets — property, vessels, aircraft, art and collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| asset_class | No | ||
| 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?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only a domain definition rather than additional behavioral context such as result shape, pagination behavior, or default limits, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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 very brief and readable, with the domain definition front-loaded in a clear dash-delimited structure. It contains no wasted words, though it is more of a definitional subtitle than a complete operational description.
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 strong annotations and presence of an output schema cover safety and return-shape concerns, keeping the overall tool usable without much additional text. However, the description omits usage guidance and leaves parameter semantics mostly implicit, so an agent would still have to reason from parameter names and general API conventions.
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 needs to compensate for the undocumented limit, cursor, asset_class, and household_id parameters. It only loosely hints at asset_class values via the listed categories, and it does not explain the other parameters at all.
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 tool name and title clearly indicate the action, and the description usefully defines the domain as property, vessels, aircraft, art and collections. However, the description itself contains no verb and does not explicitly distinguish this list operation from the sibling get_real_asset tool.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_real_asset or get_real_asset_economics. There is no mention of typical use cases, filtering strategy, or pagination, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
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.