Ripio portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: zero balances are hidden by default, the valuation uses Ripio app sell rates, and the result combines multiple balance categories into one list. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence delivers the main purpose and scope, and the second sentence flags the one important conditional behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 single optional parameter, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly: scope, included asset types, valuation basis, and zero-balance handling.

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 already fully describes include_zero with its default and meaning. The tool description echoes the zero-balance behavior ('Zero balances are hidden unless include_zero is true') but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a clear verb-resource framing: it explicitly states what the tool returns (the user's current holdings on Ripio) and enumerates the contents (Wallet fiat/crypto, memecoins, Ripio Trade balances, available/locked amounts, ARS/USD estimates). This makes it readily distinguishable from siblings like ripio_get_prices, list_activity, or get_limits.

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 clear context about the data returned, which implies it should be used when an agent needs a consolidated current holdings snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention sibling tools, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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