t212-mcp

Pie holdings

t212_get_pie

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a pie's instrument breakdown showing current and target shares, quantity owned, and performance. Identify which holdings are drifting from target allocation.

Instructions

Returns one pie's contents: every instrument in it with its current share of the pie, its target share, the quantity owned, and its result. Use this to explain how a pie is allocated or which of its holdings are drifting from target. Get the pie's id from t212_list_pies first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "t212_get_pie"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Pie identifier, as returned by t212_list_pies.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral detail about the return contents (current share, target share, quantity, result), which is especially valuable given no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: return contents, usage context, prerequisite. No redundant or verbose language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs, output fields, and use cases. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully describes the id parameter as returned by t212_list_pies, and the description repeats this guidance without adding new syntax or format details. Given 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns one pie's contents with specific fields (current share, target share, quantity, result), distinguishing it from t212_list_pies which lists all pies. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'one pie's contents' make the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool to explain pie allocation or detect holdings drifting from target. It also directs the user to get the pie id from t212_list_pies first, providing a clear prerequisite and implying the alternative for listing pies.

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

Deploy Server