finary_portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the verb 'Read', implicitly indicating a non-mutating operation, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, return format, or any side effects. The list of asset types adds domain context but not behavioral transparency. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. The verb is front-loaded, and the enumeration of asset types is compact and informative. Every part earns its place.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any other usage context, but it does not. It omits any mention of the return structure, error handling, or the org_id parameter, which is essential to know when calling the tool. The enumeration of asset types covers only part of the invocation requirements, leaving the definition incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly lists the valid values for asset_type, which is useful and goes beyond the schema (where no descriptions exist). However, it completely ignores org_id, leaving its purpose and usage undocumented. The partial compensation leads to a middling score.

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 a specific action ('Read') applied to a well-defined resource ('portfolio class'), and enumerates all valid asset types (investments, securities, cryptos, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a resource category not covered by any sibling (e.g., me, organizations, transactions).

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 reading portfolio holdings of a given asset type, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. Since siblings are clearly different domains (me, organizations, connections, transactions), the context is somewhat clear, but the description does not explicitly state scenarios or exclusions, so it remains at the 'implied' level.

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