portfolio

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real prerequisite (exchanges must have configured credentials) and the shape of the payload (balances, positions, risk metrics), but says nothing about read-only safety, behavior when an exchange lacks credentials, or the cost of fanning out across all exchanges. The read-only nature is only implied by 'summary'.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and delivers scope and contents without a wasted word. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole carrier, and it does summarize the return contents (balances, positions, risk metrics) for a zero-parameter call. It is close to complete for a simple aggregation read; only the meaning of 'risk metrics' and empty/failed-credential behavior are left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no redundant argument talk.

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 names a concrete resource (portfolio summary) and enumerates its contents (balances, positions, risk metrics) plus its scope (cross-exchange, all exchanges with configured credentials). That scope wording implicitly separates it from single-purpose siblings like get_balance and get_positions. It stops short of 5 because no sibling is named explicitly to anchor the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or any exclusion naming get_balance, get_positions, or get_pnl_analysis as narrower alternatives. The cross-exchange scope implies the use case (one aggregate view instead of per-exchange calls), which is enough for a 3 but leaves routing to inference.

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