portfolio

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

The description reveals the return structure (positions, account summary, totals), implying it is a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but covers only basic output info.

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: the first clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second lists the return fields. Every word is meaningful, no fluff. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It details return fields but omits parameter usage, default behavior, and edge cases (e.g., what happens if account is not specified). A more complete description would clarify these aspects.

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 parameter 'account' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'for an account' but does not explain how the parameter works, its format, or its default behavior. This forces the agent to infer usage, which may lead to errors.

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 it returns current holdings, cash, and totals for an account, positioning it as a snapshot for analysis. It lists specific outputs like positions and account summary. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'accounts' or 'orders', which could overlap in purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'accounts' for account details, 'orders' for orders). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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