portfolio_value

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the currency parameter can override USD, how unknown holdings are handled, whether an API key is needed, or any data-source/rate-limit details.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action with no redundant words. It is concise and well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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?

The tool is simple, has a detailed schema, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks any context about when to choose this tool or how to handle edge cases, leaving some gaps for a fully informed invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and its 'USD' wording could be misleading given the currency parameter, but the schema already documents each parameter clearly.

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 verb 'calculate' and the resource 'crypto portfolio', and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like price or trending by focusing on aggregate valuation. However, it specifies 'USD value' while the schema's currency parameter allows other fiat currencies, creating minor ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need a portfolio valuation rather than single-coin pricing. There is no explicit mention of alternatives or scenarios where another tool would be preferred, so guidance is only implicit.

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