get_portfolio_signals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's disclosure of 'quantitative signal alerts from backend analysis engine' adds moderate context. However, it does not mention rate limits, authorization needs, or what happens if no holdings exist. The description adds value beyond annotations but is not comprehensive.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose and signal types; the second adds context about the backend engine. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given two optional parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and general output overview. It could hint at the output structure (e.g., list of alerts, severity) but is fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not elaborate beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining baseline expectations. No additional semantics are provided.

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 it retrieves quantitative signal alerts for portfolio holdings, listing specific types (overbought/oversold, breakouts, chip changes). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_radar or get_technical_indicators by focusing on portfolio-level alerts.

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 quickly grasping stocks needing attention, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_stock_radar). No when-not or alternative tool names are provided. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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