Fetch fresh market prices now. With no ticker this refreshes every priced holding; with one it refreshes just that ticker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Provider symbol when it differs from the ticker | |
| ticker | No | Omit to refresh every ticker |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states that the tool fetches fresh prices, implying a network call and potential latency, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it updates stored data, rate limits, or auth requirements). It also doesn't mention what happens if the symbol is invalid or if the refresh fails. Given the lack of annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate—it adds some behavioral context (refreshing vs. fetching) but leaves significant gaps.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the scope (all vs. one), and the parameter behavior. No fluff or redundancy. This is a model of conciseness.
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 tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It explains the two modes of operation and the parameter semantics. The only missing context is behavioral details like error handling or side effects, but for a refresh tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential usage. It could be improved by noting that this is a network operation, but the core functionality is well explained.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (symbol and ticker) are documented in the schema. The description adds the key semantic that omitting ticker refreshes all holdings, which is not fully explicit in the schema (the schema says 'Omit to refresh every ticker' but the description clarifies the behavior). However, the description does not explain the difference between symbol and ticker beyond what the schema says. Since the schema already covers the parameters well, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'Fetch fresh market prices now.' It specifies the verb (fetch), the resource (market prices), and the action (refresh). It also distinguishes between two modes: refreshing all priced holdings when no ticker is provided, and refreshing a single ticker when one is provided. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_prices, which likely retrieves cached prices.
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 clear usage context: 'With no ticker this refreshes every priced holding; with one it refreshes just that ticker.' This explains when to use the tool with or without the ticker parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_prices, though the purpose of refreshing vs. fetching is implied. No exclusions or alternatives are named, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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.
