get_portfolio_state

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only' (implying no state changes) and 'Credentials are never stored,' which are valuable behavioral disclosures. However, it omits details about error handling, rate limits, or data freshness guarantees beyond 'Live'.

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 concise at three sentences, with the most important information front-loaded: what the tool returns. It adds optional behavior and security notes efficiently, with no 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return formats. It adequately mentions NAV, holdings, band weights, and optional allocation_analysis. It notes 'Live' data and supported exchanges, but could be more complete by clarifying how holdings are structured and that the tool is read-only.

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 explain all parameters. It covers exchange, api_key, and api_secret implicitly through 'read-only exchange credentials' and explicitly mentions target_pct ('attaches allocation_analysis'). However, the 'band' parameter is not described, leaving a gap in understanding its purpose.

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 returns 'Live portfolio NAV, holdings[], and band weights' using 'read-only exchange credentials', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_allocation_band that focus on allocations. It specifies supported exchanges, making the purpose precise.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. While it notes the optional target_pct parameter attaches allocation_analysis, it does not clarify when to prefer this over sibling allocation-checking tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.