spectra_get_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses that Merkl rewards are best-effort and may fail, and explains fundamental protocol mechanics (PT+YT=1, IB depositing mints both). However, it does not mention potential rate limits, performance considerations, or data freshness, which would elevate it to a 5. Nonetheless, the transparency about data sources and limitations is strong.

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 longer than ideal but well-structured: core purpose first, then Merkl rewards caveat, then protocol context and cross-referencing. It is front-loaded with the most important information. Could be slightly more concise (e.g., condensing protocol context), but it is clear and organized, earning a 4.

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 the lack of output schema, the description comprehensively explains return fields (PT, YT, LP, USD, yield, rates, Merkl rewards). It also provides protocol context to interpret balances (e.g., position shape). With many sibling tools, it offers cross-referencing guidance. This fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly and interpret results, achieving maximum completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that omitting the 'chain' parameter scans all chains, which is a critical usage hint beyond the schema's enum list. This incrementally improves clarity, justifying a 4.

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 that the tool retrieves wallet positions on Spectra, including PT, YT, LP balances, USD values, claimable yield, current rates, and Merkl rewards. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like spectra_get_pool_activity, stating that this tool shows 'what' the holder's position is, while the other shows 'how' (transaction patterns). This level of specificity and differentiation earns a top score.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, including cross-referencing with spectra_get_pool_activity and spectra_get_address_activity. It also advises checking multiple wallets if activity is concentrated. This directly helps an agent select the appropriate tool and avoid misuse, meeting the highest standard.

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