Get portfolio

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

Discloses execution costs, fees, slippage, and that fills are rehearsals, not exchange guarantees. Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive, but description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is somewhat verbose and dense, especially the execution details. While informative, it could be more concise without losing key points. The structure starts clear but becomes lengthy.

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 complexity of the tool (paper account, multiple fields, execution model), the description is thorough, covering all essential aspects. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves the lean, PII-free paper account summary with specific fields like walletId, equity, PnL, orders, progression. Distinguishes from siblings like get_wallet or get_positions as a comprehensive portfolio overview for the paper account.

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 says 'Paper trading only' and 'Not financial advice.', setting clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the paper-only constraint and specific scope (portfolio summary) guide appropriate use.

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