CreateMyPortfolioCreate a new, empty portfolio in the USER's own Equibles account, then add holdings to it with AddPortfolioLot. Ask the user before creating one, since it is their account. Names are unique within an account, and re-creating a name that already exists is rejected rather than merged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A short name for the portfolio, e.g. Main or Retirement. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: the portfolio is empty initially, holdings must be added separately via AddPortfolioLot, and duplicate names are rejected rather than merged. This provides useful behavioral detail beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds essential guidance.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers creation, uniqueness, user consent, and follow-up actions. It is fully sufficient.
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 100% with a clear description of the 'name' parameter. The description adds value by explaining uniqueness constraints and rejection behavior, which are not in the schema.
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 it creates a new empty portfolio in the user's account, and explicitly mentions the sibling tool AddPortfolioLot for adding holdings, distinguishing it from other tools.
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 instructs the agent to ask the user before creating, providing explicit user consent guidance. It also notes uniqueness constraints and rejection behavior, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that cross-reference related alternatives. A few near-duplicate names could cause misselection, notably SearchDocument versus SearchDocuments and GetCftcPositioning versus GetLatestCftcPositioning.
Tool names consistently follow a VerbNoun camelCase pattern: Get for retrievals, Search for discovery, List/Read for document access, and Add/Close/Remove/Update/Watch/Create/Delete for portfolio mutations. Despite the large count, there is no mixing of naming conventions or unpredictable verb styles.
108 tools is an extreme surface area, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and well past the 25+ threshold. Even for a broad financial data platform, this creates a heavy selection burden and substantial context overhead for agents.
The server covers an unusually wide domain: prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, options, insider activity, 13F holdings, short interest, macro data, funds, IPOs, and full portfolio lifecycle management. Notable gaps remain, such as a basic company profile/ticker-resolution tool, dividend history, and analyst estimates, so it is not a perfect 5.