claw-mcp-toolkit

finance_portfolio_tracker

Calculate portfolio value and allocation from holdings data to track financial investments and analyze asset distribution.

Instructions

Calculate portfolio value and allocation from a list of holdings

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "holdings": "<holdings>"
    },
    "name": "finance_portfolio_tracker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`holdings`	Yes	Comma-separated holdings: 'BTC:0.5,ETH:10,SOL:100' or 'AAPL:50,MSFT:30'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Calculate' implying read-only computation, but omits critical behavioral details: data source/freshness, supported asset types (crypto vs stocks), error handling for invalid symbols, and output format (especially important since no output schema exists).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, no wasted words. However, minimal length means it fails to convey necessary behavioral context that would require additional structured detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without output schema or annotations, description should specify return format (total value, allocation percentages, currency). Also missing scope (supports both crypto tickers like BTC and stock tickers like AAPL as shown in schema, but not mentioned in description).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed examples ('BTC:0.5,ETH:10'). Description mentions 'list of holdings' but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb ('Calculate') and resource ('portfolio value and allocation'), with 'from a list of holdings' distinguishing it from single-asset siblings like crypto_price and finance_stock_price. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this versus aggregating single-price lookups manually.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives mentioned. Doesn't indicate whether this is preferred over multiple calls to crypto_price for aggregate calculations, or if it requires specific formatting (though schema covers this).

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