get_portfolio_summary

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

The description explicitly states 'Zero outbound HTTP' and 'No inputs', which provides some behavioral clarity. However, with no annotations present, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or lack of side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 dense but not verbose; it packs all relevant output details into a compact list without unnecessary filler. Each clause adds useful 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job listing the major return components and units (%, BRL). It does not specify exact data types or nested structures, but for a summary tool it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what will be returned.

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 the schema is empty; the description explicitly confirms 'No inputs,' which matches the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('portfolio summary'), and enumerates the exact outputs (total value, per-class breakdown, top 5 positions, P&L, FGC coverage, maturity buckets, reconciliation gap). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_positions or get_cash_flows.

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 for obtaining an aggregate portfolio overview and reconciliation metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Usage guidance is only implicit through the listed return values.

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