Robinhood Get Portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns equity, extended hours equity, and withdrawable amount, but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any edge cases, authentication requirements, or limitations. The behavior is largely implicit from the 'Get' verb.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second lists key return fields. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a top score.

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 has no parameters, a simple read operation, and an output schema that likely details the exact structure, the description provides a useful high-level summary. The phrase 'and other account details' is slightly vague, but the output schema fills that gap. There is no obvious missing information that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is already fully covered. The description adds value by outlining the return payload (equity, extended hours equity, withdrawable amount), which goes beyond the empty input schema. According to the baseline for zero parameters, this is a solid 4.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current portfolio value and performance metrics'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like robinhood_get_positions that focus on holdings. It also names the return fields, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for overall account value as opposed to robinhood_get_positions, nor does it state any prerequisites or use cases. An agent would have to infer from the name and context.

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