read_live_portfolio

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

With no annotations (except title), the description must carry the burden. It mentions the snapshot updates every 10 minutes, a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds behavioral context. No redundancy, perfectly front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks usage context, parameter details, and description of the output, leaving the agent somewhat in the dark.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which has a description for projectId. Given 0% schema coverage reported, the description should compensate but fails to mention the required projectId or model parameter.

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 reads portfolio state of a live algorithm, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like read_live_algorithm. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. It only implies usage by defining the purpose, but no when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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