Portfolio Overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'Get' verb and enumerated contents imply a read-only operation, but the description is silent on how the currency parameter affects results (conversion behavior), how 'top positions' is defined or sorted, whether data is real-time or cached, and the scope of aggregation. These are material gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One 8-word sentence with zero filler. The core concepts (net worth, allocation, top positions) are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description names the three return components an agent should expect. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify how the only parameter (currency) transforms the output and what 'top positions' means. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, so the single 'currency' parameter is already documented with its default (USD). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('portfolio overview') while enumerating the snapshot contents (net worth, allocation, top positions). The listed content semantically distinguishes it from transaction-focused siblings like list_transactions and find_transactions, and from get_prices, though it never explicitly names a differentiating sibling such as get_positions.

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 given on when to choose this tool over its siblings. The description implies it is a high-level portfolio aggregation entry point, but it never states 'use this for an aggregate snapshot' or 'for detailed holdings use get_positions instead'. An agent must infer the selection context entirely.

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