get_my_portfolio_summaryReturn the calling wallet's FLR and SGB balances and their USD valuations. Native and wrapped (WFLR / WSGB) balances are reported separately; wrapped balances roll into the per-token USD values and the total. Requires OAuth scope wallet:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reports native and wrapped balances separately, wrapped balances roll into USD values and the total, and OAuth scope wallet:read is required. This goes beyond the structured 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?
The description is three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by relevant token-rollup behavior and the auth requirement.
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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, how wrapped balances are treated, and what authentication is needed. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on authentication scope and return semantics rather than parameter details, since no parameters exist.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clearly defined resource: the calling wallet's FLR and SGB balances and their USD valuations. It further distinguishes itself from related 'my' tools by describing the portfolio scope and the native/wrapped breakdown.
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?
It clearly states that this tool operates on the calling wallet's balances and requires the wallet:read OAuth scope, giving an agent a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling exclusions, but the unique resource makes the intended use obvious.
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 cleanly separated by resource and action: list/compare/detail for validators and FTSO providers, network_* for distinct metrics, and get_my_* for wallet concerns. A couple of pairs could be confused (get_my_claimable vs get_my_rewards_history, and the network_* trio), but the descriptions provide enough boundary detail to pick correctly.
Naming is highly consistent: all tools use snake_case with a leading verb (get_, list_, compare_, simulate_, verify_). The pattern is predictable, so an agent can infer the shape of an operation before reading its description.
At 27 tools, the surface exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy, especially with five get_my_* personal tools, five agent-oriented tools, and three network_* tools. The broad scope explains some of the count, but many of these could be consolidated or split across separate servers.
The read-only analytics surface is quite comprehensive: validators, FTSO providers, network economics, chain activity, DeFi, FAssets, prices, feeds, personal balances, delegations, and agent status are all covered. Explicit gaps remain, such as FLR-side claimables, full tax record assembly, and a complete per-epoch rewards timeline, but these are clearly flagged as follow-on phases rather than dead ends.