Get Historical Portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context: 'Costs 1 credit per address,' which is a rate/pricing detail not present in annotations. It does not disclose other behaviors (e.g., response format), but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output content, and cost. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (holdings and values) and notes the credit cost, which is helpful since there is no output schema. It does not mention data availability limitations or chain specifics, but the schema already covers address formats. Overall, it is adequately complete for a relatively simple read-only tool.

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%, with both 'date' and 'addresses' fully described in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get portfolio snapshot for a specific date in the past.' It names the specific resource (portfolio snapshot) and the temporal scope, distinguishing it from siblings like octav_get_portfolio (current) and octav_get_nav.

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 clearly conveys when to use it (for past dates) and what it shows, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the historical use case.

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