get_portfolio_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, credential storage policy, and supported exchanges. Missing details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid credentials, but the core behavioral traits are addressed.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that deliver key information without redundancy. Every phrase adds value: output, read-only, optional behavior, security note, and supported exchanges.

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 output schema exists, the description can skip return value details. It covers the mandatory read-only credentials, supported exchanges, and the optional parameter's effect. However, it fails to explain the 'band' input parameter and provides no guidance on error conditions or input formatting, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains target_pct (can attach allocation_analysis) and implies exchange usage. However, api_key, api_secret, and band are not explained, leaving the agent to infer from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 tool retrieves live portfolio NAV, holdings, and band weights. It specifies the read-only nature and supported exchanges. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might perform similar or related tasks.

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 some context: use with read-only credentials, never stored, supports Kraken and Coinbase. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_allocation_band or get_rebalance_plan, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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