Retrieve a trader's current paper holdings by symbol, amount, and chain, plus recent fills and accrued 402 fees, to answer what they hold and what fees they have paid.
The chat-native portfolio view: every paper balance for the trader (symbol, amount, chain), recent fills, and total 402 fees accrued in the paper fee ledger. Use it to answer "what do I hold?" and "what have I paid in fees?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trader_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and usefully discloses that balances are "paper" (simulated) and that fees live in a paper fee ledger. It does not state read-only semantics, freshness/recency bounds on "recent fills", limits, or auth requirements, and trader scoping is only implied.
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 the resource and followed by usage cues. The first sentence is dense but each clause carries return-value information; there is little waste.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description substitutes well by spelling out the returned fields (balances, recent fills, accrued fees). Minor gaps remain around recency definition and the undocumented trader_id, but an agent can 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single trader_id parameter. It only alludes to "the trader" without explaining format, source, or whether the ID is the caller's own, leaving the required parameter effectively undocumented.
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?
Names the resource (portfolio view of paper balances, fills, and 402 fees) and enumerates the exact contents returned (symbol, amount, chain). No sibling does portfolio/balance reads, so an agent can select it without inspecting other schemas.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it by mapping to the user questions it answers ("what do I hold?", "what have I paid in fees?"). It gives clear context but no exclusions or named alternatives, which is acceptable since no sibling overlaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.