avanza_portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List,' which implies a read operation, but does not explain the meaning of side, status, compact, refresh, or orderbook_id parameters, nor what happens when no account_id is provided or what the response contains.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes a meaningful optional qualifier, though it does not expand on important parameters.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It lacks information about how the selected account is determined, what side/status/compact/refresh do, and what the returned portfolio position data looks like.

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 only 20%, so most of the 10 parameters are undocumented. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning account scope and optional filtering by one instrument, but it does not clarify the many unexplained fields or their relationships.

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 states a clear action and object: 'List portfolio positions for the selected account, optionally filtered by one instrument.' It conveys the verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like avanza_position or avanza_paper_positions, leaving some ambiguity about live vs. paper context.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as avanza_position or avanza_paper_positions. It implies a selected account is needed but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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