get_portfolio_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well: it explains the calculation (sum of available + inOrder, multiplied by latest price), the default quote currency, and the handling of assets without a direct market chain ('unpriced'). This gives clear insight into the tool's behavior.

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, tightly packed with relevant details: calculation logic, default, and edge-case handling. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return behavior in terms of the total and an 'unpriced' list. It covers the essential aspects of the tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about the output structure or potential errors.

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 input schema has one parameter 'quote' with zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that it is the quote currency and defaults to EUR, providing all necessary semantic information for the parameter.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('total portfolio value'). It explains the calculation method and handles edge cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_balance (raw balances) and get_ticker (prices alone).

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 the tool is for computing total portfolio value, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_balance or get_ticker. No direct comparison or exclusions are provided, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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