Investments Get Portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether the result is scoped by account, date, hidden holdings, or what output shape variations exist.

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 technically short but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A two-word phrase earns no substantive information and does not front-load any meaningful behavior, constraints, or selection criteria.

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 tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is radically incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'portfolio' is, what the response contains, how filtering parameters work, or how this relates to adjacent investment tools. An agent cannot invoke this correctly based on the provided definition.

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 only 29%, with five of seven parameters lacking any schema description. The tool description does nothing to explain fields, dates, account_ids, top_movers_limit, or include_hidden_holdings, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 is a bare tautology: 'Get portfolio' restates the tool name/title without adding any specificity about what a portfolio contains or how it differs from sibling tools like investments_list_holdings or investments_get_holding_performance. An agent cannot tell what resource, scope, or aggregation is being returned.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to call this tool versus investments_list_investment_accounts, investments_list_holdings, or investments_get_holding. Neither prerequisites, alternatives, nor exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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