etoro_get_portfolio_breakdownRetrieve open positions, pending orders and available credit for a demo account, including position IDs and units needed to prepare closing a trade.
Open positions (with position ids and units), pending orders and available credit for the demo account. Position ids from here are what etoro_prepare_close_position needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description then adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the data is scoped to the demo account and the response carries position ids and units that are consumable downstream. It does not mention pagination or result size limits, but the added account scoping is meaningful context.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. Content is front-loaded (what is returned first, then the downstream-id note), and every clause carries 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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does list the three main return groups plus the demo-account scope. It stops short of describing field-level detail or ordering, which is acceptable for a read-only breakdown tool but leaves some minor gaps.
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 no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead characterizes the returned data.
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 names the concrete resources returned: open positions (with ids and units), pending orders, and available credit. That is specific enough for an agent to know what it gets, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from likely overlapping siblings such as etoro_get_portfolio or etoro_get_balances.
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?
It gives one real usage hook — the position ids are the inputs that etoro_prepare_close_position needs — which is genuinely useful workflow guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over etoro_get_portfolio, etoro_get_balances, or etoro_get_pnl, so selection among siblings is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.