Get portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the data is 'PII-free' and listing the exact fields returned, including the progression block. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key data points. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns without needing to detail output schema fields. The 3 optional parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description is complete for a paper account snapshot tool.

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 100%: all three parameters (fiat, locale, agentTrace) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus 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?

The description starts with 'Get the lean, PII-free paper account summary' and enumerates specific data fields (walletId, equity, PnL, orders, progression). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'Paper trading only', which sets it apart from other tools like get_wallet or get_performance that may involve real accounts.

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 explicitly states 'Paper trading only — virtual funds (50,000 mUSD). Not financial advice.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (paper trading context) and what not to expect (financial advice). While no direct alternatives are named, the context is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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