Every token one address holds, up to 40. Free.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"account": "<account>"
},
"name": "get_portfolio"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | Keeta address starting keeta_ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description usefully adds the 40-item cap and the fact that the call is free (no credits). It does not say what happens for addresses holding more than 40 tokens, whether results are ordered, or what each entry contains.
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 short fragments with zero waste and the scope front-loaded. The telegraphic style ('Free.') is efficient but borders on cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the pricing model.
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?
Adequate for a simple read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, but with no output schema the description should say at least roughly what a token entry looks like and how truncation at 40 is signaled.
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% and the single 'account' parameter is documented as a keeta_ address, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only 'one address', which is no more than the schema already implies.
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?
States the resource and scope concretely: all tokens held by one address, capped at 40. An agent can distinguish it from get_balance (single balance) and get_token (single token) by inference, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer this over get_balance, get_token, or search_tokens. The 'up to 40' cap implies a fallback path for larger holders but never says what that fallback is, and 'Free' implies cost but not how to use that fact.
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.