get_portfolio_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tier limitation and required API key, and implicitly indicates read-only behavior. It does not cover error handling or performance, but these are not critical for a simple getter.

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 with three short sentences covering purpose, tier differences, and authentication. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (fields and tier variations). It lacks specification of response format or error cases, but for a simple summary tool, it provides sufficient context.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, absence of parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly omits any.

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 the authenticated user's portfolio summary with specific fields like current value, total invested, unrealized P&L, ROI, and counts. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a high-level summary, contrasted with more granular tools like get_portfolio_breakdown.

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 mentions tier-based data availability (free vs premium) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools. It implies usage for a quick summary but lacks alternative recommendations.

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