Get eToro portfolio snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully scopes the call to the 'demo account' and sketches the aggregation shape, but discloses nothing about pagination, latency, or auth requirements beyond the API reference link.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: what it returns first, the sibling alternative second, the reference link last. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so adequately (totals, positions grouped by instrument, mirrors). The 'demo account' framing answers an important scope question, though the absence of any note on the aggregate-vs-breakdown trade-offs for filtering remains a small gap.

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 100%, so pnlLevel and instrumentIds are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and maxItems constraint. The description adds no additional meaning about these filters, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('aggregated snapshot of the demo account') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: account totals, open positions grouped by instrument, and copy-trading mirrors. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling etoro_get_portfolio_breakdown, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Names an alternative and the condition that selects it ('For individual open positions with their position ids and pending orders use etoro_get_portfolio_breakdown'), which is genuine routing guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer this aggregated view over other sibling reads like etoro_get_pnl or etoro_get_balances, which overlap in scope.

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