get_portfolio_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing tier-based limitations and authentication requirements, which are not covered by annotations.

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 with all essential information: what it does, what it returns, tier differences, and auth requirement. No wasted words.

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 and readOnlyHint, the description covers return fields and restrictions. However, it could specify whether the output is a single object or array, and mention if there are any default scoping.

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 input schema has no parameters (0), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable; baseline score of 4 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'portfolio summary', listing specific return fields (current value, total invested, unrealized P&L, ROI, card/unit counts). It distinguishes from siblings like get_portfolio_breakdown and get_portfolio_history by focusing on a high-level summary.

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 context on when to use based on tier (Free vs Premium) and requires IWMM_API_KEY. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use this tool.

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