Get Portfolio (primary DFM wallet)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the wallet is derived from the authenticated identity rather than passed in, and it hits the live API. It stops short of describing return shape or any rate-limit/pagination behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguating constraint and auth requirement following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's 'positions + summary' phrasing carries the return-value burden and does so only at a high level. Combined with the auth and identity-derivation notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a hint at the summary fields would complete it.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add, and instead clarifies the identity-derived scoping.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the user's primary DFM app-wallet positions + summary') and even names the underlying endpoints, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like app_wallet, list_app_wallet_assets, and get_vault. The explicit note that no portfolio-by-arbitrary-address endpoint exists removes the main ambiguity.

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 implies when to use it (fetching the authenticated user's own portfolio) and rules out the address-based variant, which is useful exclusion guidance. However, it never names a sibling alternative for the cases it excludes, and gives no explicit trigger conditions or prerequisites beyond 'AUTH required'.

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