get_allocations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description focuses on functionality and output, but a statement about safety would improve transparency.

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 concise at ~150 words, well-structured with a clear first sentence, followed by use cases, grouping options, output format, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return fields (label, currentValue, percentOfTotal, holdingCount) and sort order. The two parameters are fully explained. The tool is simple and well-documented for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% description coverage, but the description adds significant value by explaining each enum option's meaning (e.g., 'chain' is only meaningful for MetaMask) and the default for 'by'. It also clarifies the 'top' parameter behavior, going beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 clearly states the tool returns a portfolio allocation breakdown grouped by a chosen dimension, with specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'portfolio allocation breakdown'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_holdings by focusing on aggregated breakdowns rather than raw positions.

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 explicitly provides example queries for when to use the tool, such as 'how is my portfolio split' and 'allocation breakdown'. It also details each grouping dimension and their context (e.g., 'chain' only for MetaMask). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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