get_portfolio_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid portfolio ID), response format, or whether it returns real-time or historical data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves financial data. It doesn't explain what 'option positions' includes (e.g., strikes, expirations, quantities), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, date ranges). For a portfolio-related tool in a trading context, this leaves too much undefined.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single 'portfolioId' parameter. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents the parameter, so the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't provide extra context like valid ID formats or examples.

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') and resource ('all option positions in a portfolio'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_portfolio_equities' or 'get_portfolio_activities', which also retrieve portfolio data but for different asset types.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid portfolio ID), exclusions (e.g., what happens if the portfolio has no options), or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_portfolio_equities' for equities instead of options.

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