Get Portfolio Holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not responsible for conveying safety. It adds the 'specified time period' context, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, response size, or any other behavioral traits beyond that. With annotations covering the main safety profile, the description adds modest value.

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 has two sentences that are largely redundant: the first states holdings/positions/allocations/asset breakdowns, and the second repeats nearly the same list with slight rephrasing. It is not overly long, but the redundancy wastes space. A single well-structured sentence would have been sufficient.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling tools, which is important given the large set of similar tools. Otherwise, it is reasonably complete for what it does.

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 schema covers the only parameter (date_range) with a complete description and enum-like options (though not formally enumerated). The description merely references 'specified time period' without adding new semantic insight, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Get portfolio holdings') and the specific data returned (positions, allocations, asset breakdowns). However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like get_portfolio_details or get_position, so an agent might not know which tool to pick based on this description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_portfolio_details, get_portfolio_performance, get_position), the description should specify the distinguishing use case. The description only states what it does, not when it is the right choice.

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