portfolio.get

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (no mention of side effects) and describes the output as a grouped markdown table. Could be clearer about scope (only open positions) or permissions, but sufficient for a simple get.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: main function, usage guidance, and output format. It is concise but not overly terse. Slightly verbose with the detailed list, but all information is valuable.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward read operation, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns (grouped positions, per-wallet subtotals, individual fields, aggregate P&L) and its output format (markdown table). No gaps.

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?

No parameters defined, so baseline is 4. Description adds no param information, which is acceptable as there are none.

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 retrieves a comprehensive portfolio overview of all open copy-trading positions, grouped by source trader, with detailed per-wallet data and aggregate P&L. It distinguishes itself from siblings like portfolio.balance and portfolio.risk by naming them and contrasting their focus.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'as a daily status check, before sizing decisions via config.set, or to identify which source wallet is carrying the portfolio.' Also directs to alternatives: portfolio.balance for budget numbers, portfolio.risk for concentration metrics.

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