Estimate partial net worth per currency using selected accounts and investments, revealing overlaps and gaps in your financial picture.
Estimativa patrimonial parcial por moeda, com possíveis sobreposições e lacunas explícitas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_ids | No | ||
| investment_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| pagination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing that the result is partial, may contain overlaps, and has explicit gaps. This is useful honesty about data quality and scope. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint or openWorldHint 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?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, phrases like 'possíveis sobreposições e lacunas explícitas' are compact but slightly vague, and the sentence could have used the saved space to mention parameter roles.
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 tool with optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally viable: it states the estimate's nature and caveats. But it omits any indication of how the optional IDs shape the result or when this tool should be invoked, leaving an agent to infer too much.
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 0%, and the description does not explain account_ids or investment_ids, nor how they affect the estimate. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no meaning is added about filtering, combination, or omission behavior.
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 communicates a partial net worth estimate per currency, identifying the resource and key distinguishing traits. It does not use a verb, but 'Estimativa patrimonial parcial' clearly conveys the operation and the 'por moeda' and 'parcial' aspects help separate it from total-balance siblings.
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 about when to prefer this tool over get_total_balance, get_account_balance, or get_investment_portfolio. The 'partial estimate' wording implies approximate use, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.