aggregated_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that unauthenticated brokers contribute degraded entries (status=unavailable), ensuring partial information is always returned. It also lists the return structure keys. However, it does not mention authentication prerequisites or potential errors.

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 with three sentences: purpose, behavioral detail, and return key summary. It is front-loaded with the main action. While it could be slightly more compact, there is no unnecessary information.

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 lists the return keys (aggregated totals, per-broker rollups, positions, partial_failure flag, unavailable_brokers), which aligns with an output schema. It covers the essential behavior (degraded entries) and scope. However, it lacks details on error handling or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 because no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 retrieves a unified portfolio view across all registered brokers, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'unified portfolio view.' It distinguishes itself from the many broker-specific portfolio tools in the sibling list by explicitly mentioning aggregation and naming Robinhood and Schwab.

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 implies usage when a holistic portfolio view is needed, and mentions degraded entries for unauthenticated brokers, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over individual portfolio tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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