trace_holding_quantity

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral detail: symbol is refused on stdio due to decryption limitation, and the tool returns per-transaction contributions. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first for purpose, second for usage context. No wasted words, efficient.

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?

While the description covers purpose and a key constraint, it lacks details about the output format (list of contributions) and temporal scope. With no output schema, more completeness would help.

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?

Parameter descriptions in schema are 100% covered. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference between the two parameters: one works universally, the other is refused on stdio. This clarifies their appropriate usage.

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 function: 'Per-transaction quantity contributions for a single holding,' using a specific verb-resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on per-transaction detail rather than aggregated analysis.

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 provides context-specific guidance: on stdio, use holdingId, not symbol. It implicitly advises against using symbol when the system cannot decrypt names. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like get_portfolio_analysis.

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