portfolio_get_valuation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context: conversion to a configurable fiat symbol with EUR default, return shape (total value, breakdown by asset, individual valuations), dust filtering, and a privacy marker. It does not mention the caching behavior, but the force_refresh parameter schema already covers that.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives return format, default currency, and filtering behavior. Every clause contributes actionable information.

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 read-only aggregation tool with rich annotations and full parameter schema coverage, the description is complete: it states what is aggregated, how values are converted, what is returned, and a key filtering behavior. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return-shape summary.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the default EUR behavior and the fiat conversion semantics, which is useful but does not substantially extend what the schema already provides for jwt, quote_symbol, or force_refresh.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculates the total portfolio value by aggregating all assets across Wallet, Pro Trading, Earn/Staking, and Loans.' This clearly differentiates it from narrower sibling tools like wallet_get_pockets or pro_get_balance, which cover only one asset area.

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 makes the tool's context clear by specifying that it aggregates across all four major asset categories, so an agent can infer it is the tool for total portfolio valuation rather than a sub-account balance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the scope statement provides sufficient routing context.

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