webquik_get_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'subscribe' hints at a streaming/ongoing-update semantic rather than a one-shot read, but the description never explains whether the subscription persists, how updates are delivered, or what (if any) permissions are required. That ambiguity is significant for an agent deciding whether to call this repeatedly.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter call, though it is arguably too terse given the unexplained subscription behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, because the description introduces a non-obvious 'subscribe' behavior without explaining it, and gives no usage context relative to five closely related account-data siblings, it is only minimally complete for the agent's decision-making needs.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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?

States a specific verb pair (subscribe to and return) and a specific resource (client portfolio positions), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighbors like webquik_get_orders, webquik_get_trades, or webquik_get_limits, which all return client-scoped data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of how this differs from the other account-data tools in the sibling list, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in, session must be active). The only routing signal is the word 'portfolio' in the name itself.

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