calculate_portfolio

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states read-only, stateless, idempotent, no side effects, authentication details (no auth for basic usage), rate limits (free: 10/day, pro: unlimited), error handling (structured error objects), and data privacy (no storage/logging). Comprehensive.

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 lengthy with redundant sections (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap). The 'When to use' section is generic and adds little value. Could be more concise by merging repetitive parts, but front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 2 parameters, no input schema annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all critical aspects: input format, behavior, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and privacy. No gaps remain.

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 description must compensate. It explains the holdings parameter format explicitly ('BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100') and notes that api_key is for authentication. While api_key explanation is minimal, the holdings format description adds significant value beyond 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 explicitly states the tool calculates total portfolio value from holdings and provides the exact input format 'BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_cryptos, get_market_cap, and track_price by focusing on portfolio calculation.

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 'When to use' section is generic ('structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards') and not specific to portfolio calculation. The 'When NOT to use' is vague. No explicit comparison to sibling tools. However, the description does clarify the required input format.

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