market_get_portfolio_coins

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the share token requirement, which is already in the schema. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, error conditions, or rate limits. This is minimal and insufficient.

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 a single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the core action and result ('Get portfolio holdings with P/L data'), followed by the essential prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and there is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it does not. The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters well, but the description omits any mention of response format, pagination details, or errors. Given the absent output schema and lack of usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (page, limit, shareToken). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, only restating the share token requirement. Hence, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not improve upon 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get portfolio holdings with P/L data'. This clearly states what it does and differentiates it from sibling tools like market_get_wallet_balance by specifying portfolio holdings and P/L data. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or edge cases, so it misses the top score.

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 a key prerequisite: 'requires share token from CoinStats web app'. This tells the agent when to use the tool (when a share token is available) but does not explain when not to use it or mention alternatives like market_get_portfolio_chart or portfolio_get_summary. Thus, usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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