Natural-language Q&A on a Plaid-linked portfolio (read-only). Requires user_id of a previously-synced portfolio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| question | Yes | e.g. 'Am I overexposed to tech?' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is read-only and requires a previously-synced portfolio user_id, which are useful behavioral traits. However, with no annotations, it does not cover error behavior, data freshness, or invalid user_id handling, limiting transparency.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key prerequisite. No redundant information.
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 simple read-only Q&A tool, the description covers purpose, safety, and a parameter prerequisite. However, it does not mention the return format or provide guidance on choosing this tool over siblings, leaving gaps for agent selection.
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 description adds context for user_id by specifying it must belong to a previously-synced portfolio, partially compensating for the schema lacking a description for that parameter. The question parameter already has an example in the schema, and the description does not add further meaning.
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 performs natural-language Q&A on a Plaid-linked portfolio and is read-only. It identifies the specific resource and action but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like datafood_query or datafood_bundle.
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 a prerequisite (user_id of a previously-synced portfolio) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendation.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: bundling multiple queries, Q&A on a portfolio, executing a single query, and opening a watchable session. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools share the 'datafood_' prefix and use snake_case. However, 'portfolio_ask' is a verb-noun order that slightly deviates from the noun-like pattern of 'bundle', 'query', and 'watch_session'.
With 4 tools covering single queries, bundled queries, portfolio Q&A, and agent sessions, the count is well-scoped for the domain. No tool feels extraneous or missing.
The tools cover core operations (query, bundle, portfolio analysis, session management). Minor gaps exist, such as lacking tools for payment management or listing sessions, but these are not essential for basic usage.