Статистика портфеля

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds contextual behavior by indicating the result is period-based and includes historical/monthly valuations, but it does not disclose additional operational traits such as computed vs raw data, update timing, or limitations. No contradiction with 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 short and front-loaded: it names the resource, enumerates the data categories, and gives the account ID source. It earns its place, though a touch more explicit parameter detail would improve it without bloating the text.

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?

There is an output schema and detailed annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, given that the tool sits among several invest_* tools and has two parameters, the description leaves the days/period parameter under-explained and does not clearly differentiate selection from invest_operations. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the purpose and source of broker_account_id as 'from invest_accounts()', but it does not explain the 'days' parameter beyond the phrase 'за период', which only weakly implies a time window. The agent is left without clear semantics for the duration, unit, or effect of the optional period parameter.

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 identifies the tool as 'Портфель статистика' — portfolio statistics — and enumerates what it covers: deposits/withdrawals, coupons, dividends, and monthly valuation. This gives an agent a concrete sense of the resource and data, and it is distinct enough from related tools like invest_operations, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 gives a meaningful prerequisite — broker_account_id comes from invest_accounts() — but it does not state when to choose this tool over siblings like invest_operations or invest_securities. There is no exclusion guidance or alternative selection logic, so the usage guidance remains mostly implicit.

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