get_historical_portfolio_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, is not confirm-gated, returns OctoBot's JSON body unchanged, and that currency defaults to USDT server-side. This is strong transparency for a simple fetch tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays reasonably compact. The source-confirmation detail is useful but makes the second sentence dense; still, every sentence contributes relevant information.

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?

For a read-only GET-like tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, parameter optionality, default behavior, and response identity. It could be more complete about return value structure and parameter formats, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all five query parameters and states they are optional filters, and it adds the useful currency default behavior. However, it does not explain timestamp formats, time_frame units, or valid exchange values, leaving meaningful semantic gaps.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch historical portfolio value samples, optionally filtered.' It also names the exact endpoint, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_pnl_history or get_orders.

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 gives useful invocation context: all query parameters are optional, and the call is read-only. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.

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