camelot_investment_tracker

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'Local browser processing,' which is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured data. It clarifies execution happens client-side without contradicting any annotation. No contradiction found.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a minor typo (double period) and a canonical URL that is somewhat extraneous, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool. It covers the purpose, inputs, and execution context. Missing explicit behavior around output format is mitigated by the output schema.

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 all parameters (holdings array with shares, symbol, avgCost, currentPrice) are documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'holdings, cost basis, and manually entered prices' loosely maps to these fields but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific purpose: recording holdings, cost basis, and manually entered prices to review allocation and gain/loss. It uses a specific verb ('record') and resource (investment holdings). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like camelot_net_worth_tracker or camelot_crypto_tax_calculator, so it falls short of the top score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for investment tracking, but there is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context without support.

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