Record a signed quantity change on one holding (a balance update that is not a trade). Same body and validation as POST /api/position-adjustments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| account | Yes | ||
| tx_date | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| quantity_delta | Yes | Signed quantity change (non-zero) | |
| allow_new_values | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action and references an API endpoint for validation. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or authorization needs. The behavioral transparency is lacking.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and key distinction. It is efficient but could include more detail without becoming verbose.
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 complexity of the tool (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings beyond one, lacks return value info, and provides no context on prerequisites or effects.
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 coverage is only 14% (only 'quantity_delta' described). The description adds no parameter-level explanations beyond referencing the API endpoint. For 7 parameters, the description does not compensate for the sparse schema, leaving many parameters undefined.
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 records a signed quantity change on a holding, explicitly distinguishing it from a trade. It uses specific verbs and resource references, and the sibling context with 'log_trade' reinforces the distinction.
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 implies usage for non-trade balance updates by stating 'not a trade', but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives beyond the implied sibling.
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 domain operation: dashboard views, history, pricing, projections, reference data, tax reports, connections, transactions, trade logging, balance adjustments, and syncing. There is no overlap between read-only queries and mutation commands, so an agent should be able to select the right tool for a specific task without confusion.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_dashboard, get_net_worth_history, get_prices, get_projection_config, get_reference_data, get_tax_report, list_connections, list_transactions, log_trade, record_balance_adjustment, refresh_prices, sync_connections. The verbs (get, list, log, record, refresh, sync) are clear and align with the noun they operate on.
Twelve tools is well-scoped for a personal finance/ledger server. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the domain (viewing, reporting, data entry, sync), and none feel redundant or excessive. This fits the typical range for a coherent service.
The surface covers core read operations (dashboard, history, prices, reference data, tax, transactions), mutation operations (log_trade, record_balance_adjustment), and maintenance operations (refresh_prices, sync_connections). Missing could be an update/delete for transactions or connections, but the provided tools cover the primary lifecycle of a financial ledger without dead ends.
