Retrieve your current IBI brokerage portfolio in USD, including total value, cash, profit/loss, and every open position. Set refresh=true to bypass the short cache.
Current IBI portfolio: total value, cash, profit/loss, and every open position (symbol, quantity, cost, market value, P/L, weight). Values come from IBI itself, in USD. Set refresh=true to skip the short cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose valuable traits beyond the schema: the data provenance ('Values come from IBI itself, in USD') and the presence of a short cache with a bypass flag. It does not cover auth requirements, staleness windows, or error behavior.
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 sentences, zero filler. The return contents are front-loaded and the cache/refresh detail is placed after, matching the order an agent needs them.
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 no output schema, and the description compensates well by listing the exact position fields returned (symbol, quantity, cost, market value, P/L, weight) plus currency. For a single optional boolean parameter this is nearly complete; only auth and freshness specifics are absent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Set refresh=true to skip the short cache' explains the parameter's effect and even its default-off behavior implicitly. The remaining gap is that 'short cache' is never quantified, leaving the agent to guess how stale a non-refresh read is.
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 specific resource ('Current IBI portfolio') and enumerates exactly what it returns: total value, cash, P/L, and every open position with per-field detail. The purpose is unambiguous, though it never mentions the sibling get_account_activity, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation between the two.
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 only implied by the word 'Current' and the refresh hint; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_account_activity, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The one concrete guidance given—set refresh=true to skip the short cache—is parameter-level, not tool-selection-level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.