get_portfolio

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It provides meaningful behavioral context: prices are fetched live, value and weight are computed from those live prices, results are sorted by value, and a total is included. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent predict 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 concise sentences, front-loading the core output and then adding behavioral detail on live pricing and calculation. There is no repetition of schema fields or irrelevant filler.

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 small, read-only tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names what is returned, how it is sorted, how values are computed, and that prices are live. The only real gap is not providing usage/routing guidance or explicit allowed values for quote, but the default value and clear language partly compensate.

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 no descriptions, and there is one parameter, quote. The description explains that the portfolio is valued in the quote currency, which gives meaning to the quote parameter. Combined with the default of USDT in the schema, this is enough for an agent to understand the parameter's role, though it doesn't enumerate possible values.

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 output: a whole-portfolio view in quote currency with per-coin amount, live price, value, weight sorted by value, plus total. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like get_balances and get_price, which serve narrower or different purposes.

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 should be used when a live-valued portfolio snapshot is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_balances, get_price, or other pricing/balance tools. No alternatives or explicit exclusions are mentioned.

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