portfolio_add_manual_holding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Add', which implies mutation, but provides no details about immutability, side effects, uniqueness constraints, or required prerequisites (e.g., that the portfolio must already exist). This is insufficient for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and context. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff. It is a model of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 required parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimal but does convey the essence. However, it does not address what happens after the holding is added (e.g., return value, effect on portfolio summary) or any prerequisites, so it is only minimally complete.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, and the tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't compensate further but doesn't need to.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and a clear resource ('manual holding') with illustrative examples ('CEX accounts, cold storage') that immediately convey the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from related tools like portfolio_add_wallet, which presumably adds wallet-based holdings.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for CEX accounts, cold storage, etc.), implying it is the alternative to wallet-based additions. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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