get_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only', which is essential for safety, and notes the tool derives data from open positions. However, it does not mention return format, data freshness, or behavior when there are no open positions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose, includes the key qualifiers 'current', 'market values', and 'allocation', and ends with a useful 'Read-only' safety disclosure. No filler 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?

For a zero-parameter, low-complexity read-only tool, the description conveys the essential purpose and data source. Since there is no output schema, a note on return shape or inclusion/exclusion of cash could improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is nearly sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, and the baseline for such tools is 4. The description appropriately focuses on output content rather than parameter details, so no further parameter explanation 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Build a current portfolio view') and specifies content ('market values and allocation') and data source ('from open positions'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_positions, which likely returns raw positions rather than a derived valuation view.

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 implies a clear use case: when you need a current portfolio snapshot with market values and allocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is obvious enough that an agent knows when to choose this tool over raw position or cash queries.

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