get_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key requirement: the need for COINBASE_EMAIL and COINBASE_PASSWORD environment variables. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention rate limits, or describe possible failure modes. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but this is not made explicit.

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 consists of two short sentences that are direct and free of filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a critical prerequisite.

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 tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and the key setup requirement. It does not detail the exact return format, but this is acceptable for a low-complexity tool. Overall, it offers sufficient context for an agent to decide and invoke the 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?

The tool has zero input parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds value by mentioning environment variables, which are relevant to how the tool operates, but these are not part of the input schema.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and a clear resource ('your Coinbase portfolio balances and values'), which is distinct from sibling tools like get_transactions, buy_crypto, or get_prices. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives. While siblings exist (e.g., get_transactions for transaction history), the description does not provide any comparison, exclusions, or context for selection. The usage scenario is left entirely to inference.

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