avanza_tv_preopen_portfolio_bundle

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

With no annotations provided the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core safety trait ('Read-only') plus the fact that it composes two data sources. However, it stays silent on session/auth dependencies despite five auth-related parameters (cookie, sessionid, sessionid_sign, authenticated, account_id), does not reveal the coverage-audit behavior triggered by coverage_targets/coverage_target_percent, and says nothing about cross-service latency or partial-failure risk from hitting TradingView.

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 single sentence is tightly written and front-loaded with 'Read-only' before the resource list, with no wasted words. It is scannable at a glance, though arguably thin for a 12-parameter composite tool; that under-specification is a completeness problem better penalized in other dimensions.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, 12 parameters, and an extremely dense sibling list of roughly 80 tools, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits the output bundle's contents, the session/auth requirements implied by the parameters, when to choose it over signal_context_bundle or tv_preopen_batch_snapshot, and the coverage-target semantics that make it an audit tool rather than a passive snapshot.

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 33%, so the tool description must compensate for the eight undocumented parameters (cookie, market, compact, sessionid, account_id, authenticated, sessionid_sign, include_symbols) — it adds nothing. The description contains zero parameter information, leaving an agent to guess at valid market values, the meaning of the compact flag, and include_symbols filtering behavior.

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 names two concrete resources (Avanza portfolio protection state, TradingView pre-open market/technical snapshots) and states the operation ('merged'), with 'Read-only' upfront. The composite nature is clear and reasonably distinct from a plain avanza_portfolio or tv_preopen_symbol_snapshot call. However, it does not specify what fields the output bundle contains or explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly composite signal_context_bundle.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this bundle over siblings such as tv_preopen_batch_snapshot, signal_context_bundle, or avanza_protection_gaps, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts in which a narrower tool would be better. An agent must infer applicability entirely from the name.

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