get_portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a key requirement ('Requires PEAR_API_KEY') and implies a read operation, but does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects. The listed return metrics add some transparency, but more detail (e.g., response format, performance) would improve clarity.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and lists key metrics, the second adds an authentication requirement. No extraneous words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return data (bucketed PnL, overall stats). It covers the main metrics an agent would need, though it lacks structural details (e.g., nesting, pagination). The tool has no parameters, so complexity is low, and the description is mostly complete.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for no parameters is 4, which is appropriate as no additional semantic value is needed.

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 the tool fetches the authenticated user's full portfolio metrics on Pear Protocol, listing specific metrics like bucketed PnL and overall stats. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('portfolio metrics'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_account_summary or get_trade_history.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account_summary or get_open_positions. It lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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