build_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature or authorization needs. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies state. The term 'build' could imply generation, but no clarification is given.

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 short and to the point, with two sentences that first state the overall purpose and then enumerate output details. No extraneous information is present.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it could be improved by clarifying the scope (e.g., for a single account or aggregated) and any prerequisites (e.g., existing holdings data).

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none. It correctly lists what the output includes (cost basis, equity, dividends, performance), which adds value beyond the parameter list.

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 builds comprehensive holdings with dividend information and performance metrics. It distinguishes the resource but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'schwab_get_build_holdings' which appears to have similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions, context, or exclusions, and sibling tools like 'aggregated_portfolio', 'portfolio', or 'positions' are not addressed.

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