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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and the data returned, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, error conditions, or limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. There is no redundant information or filler. It is efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool is simple, and there is an output schema (not shown) that likely covers the return format. However, the description does not explain the 'account' parameter, nor does it provide any usage context or prerequisites. It is adequate for a basic getter but leaves the parameter undefined and omits any edge-case or error behavior, making it only partially complete.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'account' with a default, but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter's meaning, but it fails to do so. 'Account' is ambiguous (e.g., account ID, account type) and the agent has no guidance on how to use it or what values are valid.

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 ('Get') on a specific resource ('all open positions') with additional detail ('live prices and unrealized P&L'). It is distinct from sibling tools like buy/sell/history, which involve trading actions, whereas this is a read-only portfolio view. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for viewing open positions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_balance or history. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions. The usage context is inferred from the name and description, but no direct guidance is provided.

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