Get holdings

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

Given the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds context by emphasizing 'actual positions' and the freshness advantage over hand-maintained files. It does not disclose return format or potential caveats, but the annotations already set expectations for safety, and the added context is valuable beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, highly concise, and directly informative. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides actionable guidance. No wasted words.

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 simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what is returned, where it comes from, and why this source is preferred, making the tool self-contained.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is an empty object. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no need for parameter-related explanation. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource (positions and P&L in the Toss Securities account). It clearly differentiates from hand-maintained portfolio files, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like toss_get_orders or toss_get_buying_power, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when you need actual positions and P&L, and it advises preferring it over hand-maintained portfolio files due to potential staleness. It does not, however, contrast with sibling getter tools, so exclusion of alternatives is limited but adequately covered for the scenario mentioned.

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