Get Portfolio at Block

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), so the description's contribution is the add-on entitlement requirement, the 1-credit cost, and the point-in-time semantics ('every balance and price as of that block'). That last point is behaviorally important because it tells the agent prices are historical, not current. It does not cover pagination or response shape, so not a 5.

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, no filler. The resource and scope come first, and the prerequisites/cost follow, so an agent can decide viability quickly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does at least characterize the return as balances and prices at that block, and it discloses the add-on and credit constraints. It leaves the response structure and any missing-data behavior unstated, which is a modest gap for a point-in-time portfolio call.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates the three chains and the address format, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that block determines the valuation point for both balances and prices — an interpretation the bare 'Block number' description does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get a portfolio) plus the distinguishing scope: a single EVM address valued at a specific block, on one of three named chains. That scope cleanly separates it from the current-state octav_get_portfolio and the time-series octav_get_historical without needing to name them.

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?

Gives real gating context — 'Requires the Portfolio at Block add-on' and 'Costs 1 credit' — which tells an agent both the prerequisite and the cost of choosing this over a cheaper sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with octav_get_portfolio or octav_get_historical, so the alternative-selection rule is implied rather than stated.

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