get_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is returned (TL total value, daily P/L, cash and buying power for both BIST and USD accounts), which is not derivable from annotations or the empty schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the returned components without any filler. Every phrase adds meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or trivial details.

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 read-only, no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the agent will receive, including specific financial metrics and account breakdowns. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and decide whether to call it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description has no obligation to explain parameter behavior. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate because the schema is trivially complete and the description correctly focuses on output rather than input.

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 action (returns) and the resource (portfolio), enumerating specific data items (total value in TL, daily P/L, cash balances and buying power for BIST/TRY and USD accounts). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_assets or get_transactions, which target individual assets or transaction histories.

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 makes it evident this tool is for retrieving an overall portfolio summary, which is the clear context of use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, unlike a definition that names a sibling. Still, the context is unambiguous for an agent seeking portfolio-level metrics.

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