Get Portfolio

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

The description states it 'Retrieve[s]' data, which aligns with readOnlyHint=true, and lists the included fields (total value, P&L, allocation). However, it does not add context beyond the annotation, such as data freshness, currency, or whether positions are included. The annotation already covers safety, so the description provides only minimal additional behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action ('Retrieve the current portfolio summary'). It provides the key informational fields without unnecessary words or repetition, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with no parameters, an read-only annotation, and no output schema. The description adequately explains the return contents (total value, P&L, allocation) and clarifies it is a 'current' summary. It could be slightly more explicit about data freshness or base currency, but for a tool of this complexity it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It correctly avoids inventing parameter details where none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('portfolio summary') while detailing what it includes: total value, P&L, and allocation. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_portfolio_history (history) and get_positions (positions), which cover different aspects.

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 word 'current' implies this is a snapshot tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_pnl_by_trader or get_positions. There is no mention of when not to use it or discussion of sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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