Get Portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: outputPath changes response to a summary, csv outputs positions array, and mentions expected yield. No contradictions and adds useful context.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and key details. Every part adds value; no superfluous text. Excellent conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the main return elements (totals, positions, ticker/name, prices, accrued interest) and covers special behavior for outputPath/csv. It gives a sufficient overview for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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%, and parameter descriptions are already very detailed. The tool description adds minimal value (e.g., 'csv output writes the positions array') but mostly repeats schema info, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 portfolio summary in RUB, listing specific contents (totals by asset class, expected yield, positions with ticker/name, price info, accrued interest). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only portfolio-level tool.

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 implies usage for getting a portfolio summary but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_accounts or other sibling tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, making it moderately clear.

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