Get Virtual Users Portfolio

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses three behaviors an agent can't infer: a Pro plan is required, each address costs 1 credit, and the call blocks on a fresh sync by default. Cost, entitlement, and latency are exactly the traits that drive tool selection and batching decisions.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (input source, output shape, usage flag, cost/latency), front-loaded with the core purpose. Nothing is redundant with itself.

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 covers returns by deferring to octav_get_portfolio's shape, and it covers cost, entitlement, and sync behavior. It does not describe error/partial-failure behavior when one virtual address fails, which leaves a small gap for a batched-address 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: cost scales per address ('1 credit per address'), which interacts meaningfully with the max-10 limit, and it frames addresses as coming from a specific sibling. The aggregated/waitForSync notes largely restate schema defaults, keeping it below 5.

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?

Specific verb + resource (get portfolios) scoped to virtual users, and it explicitly separates itself from siblings by pointing at octav_list_virtual_users for the input and octav_get_portfolio for the output shape. An agent can distinguish this from octav_get_portfolio without opening either schema.

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 a clear precondition (obtain virtual:<id> addresses from octav_list_virtual_users) and a usage branch ('set aggregated for one combined portfolio'), plus the default wait-for-sync behavior. It stops short of naming an explicit when-not alternative (e.g. use octav_get_portfolio for real wallets), so 4 rather than 5.

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