portfolio_snapshot

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

Discloses important behavioral traits: position weight calculation using KRW-converted cash-inclusive denominator, partial cash behavior with omittedCashCurrencies, and warning about holdings.count on partial status. No annotations to contradict; description adds full context.

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 fairly detailed but well-structured. Front-loads the purpose. Some redundancy in explaining position weights, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the snapshot contains, including edge cases and calculation details. Covers partial failures and warnings, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 0%, so description should compensate, but parameters (limit, accountSeq, currencies) are straightforward and their semantics are clear from the schema. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but the schema is sufficient.

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 reads a structured account snapshot including holdings, buying power, open orders, position weights, warning flags, and partial failures. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like holdings or orders_open by being a composite snapshot.

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?

Provides guidance on what to do when status is 'partial' (do not trust holdings.count, retry or use fallback). Also explains the denominator for position weights. However, does not explicitly compare to alternatives like individual endpoints.

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