get_model_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 10-credit cost, explicitly states it is a research portfolio and not investment advice, and describes the returned data. This is solid transparency for a read-only view tool, though it could mention whether any auth or rate limits apply.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concrete return details and the credit cost. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret results: it lists active position fields, portfolio return, performance history, and the credit cost. The information provided is complete for a simple getter tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already provides full coverage. The description adds relevant context about what the portfolio represents and what metrics are returned, which is useful given the absence of an output schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('View') and specific resource ('current NORTH7 model portfolio positions and performance metrics'). Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling signal/analysis tools by focusing on the model portfolio rather than market signals or agent context.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to see current positions, entry prices, P&L, and portfolio performance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate use versus the listed sibling tools.

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