get-portfolio-chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get portfolio performance chart data' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns raw data or image URLs. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and gets straight to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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?

For a relatively simple 2-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, without annotations and with multiple sibling tools that could be confused with this one, the description should provide more contextual guidance about when this specific tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description provides no value beyond the structured data.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('portfolio performance chart data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-portfolio-coins' or 'get-portfolio-transactions' by focusing specifically on chart data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar chart tools like 'get-coin-chart-by-id'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for portfolio data (get-portfolio-coins, get-portfolio-transactions) and chart data (get-coin-chart-by-id), but the description offers no context about when this specific portfolio chart tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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