HTX Get Portfolio Snapshot

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds valuable non-obvious details: it reads concurrently, V5 swap accounts also include open orders, and no market data is fetched. These traits go beyond the structured annotations and help an agent predict side effects and scope accurately.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and a second sentence adding useful scope and behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the title or schema.

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 rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns, what accounts it touches, when it is preferred, and what it deliberately avoids doing, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters well. The tool description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the 'compact' default behavior, so a baseline score of 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return one compact cross-product portfolio snapshot for account review.' It further distinguishes itself by stating it reads spot and USDT-swap balances/positions, adds V5 open-order coverage, and explicitly notes that no market data is fetched, separating it from market-oriented sibling tools.

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 clear usage context by calling this 'the preferred pre-session portfolio check' and explains that it covers both spot and USDT-swap balances and positions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the right situation.

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