portfolio-mcp

get_portfolio

Retrieves comprehensive details of a saved portfolio, including allocation, metrics, and settings.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a stored portfolio.

Retrieves comprehensive information about a portfolio including its allocation, metrics, and settings.

Args: name: The portfolio name.

Returns: Dictionary containing full portfolio details, or error if not found.

Example: info = get_portfolio(name="tech_stocks") print(f"Sharpe Ratio: {info['metrics']['sharpe_ratio']}")

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_portfolio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.5Jan 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it is a retrieval operation ('Get') and mentions error on not found, but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or any other behavioral traits like caching, auth needs, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured: brief opening sentence, then Args/Returns/Example sections. No unnecessary text; every sentence adds value. Example is concise and illustrative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: purpose, input, output format with example, and error handling. Could add more context on output schema structure or prerequisite (portfolio must exist).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description only repeats 'The portfolio name.' without adding constraints, format, or referential context (e.g., exact match, case sensitivity). The example provides a concrete value but minimal semantic enrichment.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a stored portfolio' and specifies the scope as including 'allocation, metrics, and settings,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_portfolio_metrics or list_portfolios.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_portfolio_metrics or compare_portfolios. The description implies use for comprehensive details but lacks explicit differentiation or when-not-to-use advice.

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