Simulated testnet portfolio for a userId (same data as GET /v1/portfolio): seeded balances, fills, optional portal. Requires userId. Does not invent live chain balances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| portal | No | Portal slug (default base) | |
| userId | Yes | Required user id (from POST /v1/users/session or x-ava-user-id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it returns seeded balances and fills, is testnet-based, and does not invent live chain balances. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of a portfolio query implies it. The absence of an explicit read-only declaration and lack of side-effect disclosure are minor 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 extremely concise, with two sentences that pack purpose, scoping, data content, and a key constraint. The most important information (simulated testnet portfolio) is front-loaded, and every word contributes value without redundancy.
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-like tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it mentions seed data, testnet nature, and the no-live-invention constraint. It could be improved by explicitly stating the expected output format, but referencing GET /v1/portfolio gives a strong hint. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to call 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (portal and userId), each with descriptions. The description adds little beyond confirming userId is required and portal is optional, which is already in the schema. It does not provide additional semantic detail for parameters, so 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 a specific purpose: it returns a simulated testnet portfolio for a userId, with the same data as GET /v1/portfolio. It distinguishes itself from siblings (which are action-oriented tools) by being the only portfolio query. The phrase 'Does not invent live chain balances' further clarifies its scope.
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 gives clear context that this is for testnet/simulated data and clarifies it does not fabricate live balances, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the testnet scope. Since siblings are clearly different action tools, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.