get_all_holdings

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

With only openWorldHint annotation and no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries the burden of disclosing behaviors such as authentication requirements, side effects, or constraints. The description only lists return metrics and does not mention that the tool is read-only, requires login, or has any rate limits. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool that likely accesses sensitive portfolio data.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's function and the specific metrics returned. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is concise and well-structured.

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 description is adequate for a simple, parameterless retrieval tool, but it lacks a note about why this tool is different from get_holdings (e.g., 'use this for extended P&L data, get_holdings for basic holdings'). It also does not mention any prerequisites like authentication or the output format, given that no output schema is provided. The tool is relatively simple, but the description could be more 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for no parameters is 4 because there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. This score reflects the absence of parameter documentation requirements.

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: 'Get extended portfolio holdings' with specific metrics (total holding value, total investment, total P&L, P&L percentage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holdings by highlighting the 'extended' prefix and the additional computed values, making the purpose specific and 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 usage when a user needs extended portfolio data with P&L summaries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_holdings or get_positions. There are no exclusions or comparisons to siblings, so the guidance 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.