get_portfolio_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time P&L' calculation and return format ('per-asset breakdown and total portfolio performance'), but doesn't specify data sources, update frequency, accuracy limitations, or error handling. For a financial calculation tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second specifies the return format. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately.

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 calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but leaves gaps. It covers what the tool does and what it returns at a high level, but doesn't address important contextual details like calculation methodology, data freshness, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be important for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'portfolio of crypto and/or stocks' which aligns with the asset parameter descriptions, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, validation rules, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Calculate real-time P&L for a portfolio of crypto and/or stocks.' It specifies the verb (calculate) and resource (portfolio P&L), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on portfolio-level analysis rather than individual asset data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools like get_top_movers which might also involve portfolio-related metrics.

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 context ('for a portfolio of crypto and/or stocks') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of get_multiple_crypto_prices for portfolio calculations or how it differs from get_top_movers in portfolio analysis scenarios. The context is clear but lacks specific when/when-not instructions.

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