refresh_data

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool only invalidates the cache, does not trigger fetches, and optionally scopes to a single connector. It also warns of the scope without a parameter (invalidates everything tracker-related).

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 well-structured with front-loaded key information and clear sections. However, it is somewhat lengthy (5 sentences) and could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description does not mention return values or status indications. However, it covers usage, scope, follow-up, and exclusions comprehensively. Missing return value info is a minor 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter (connector) enumerated. The description adds value by explaining that omitting the parameter invalidates all connectors, and providing context about connector options (bybit, binance, metamask, etc.).

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 invalidates the PORTFOLIO TRACKER cache and forces a fresh fetch on next call, with specific examples of user queries ('refresh my portfolio', 'update my holdings', etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cache invalidation rather than data retrieval (e.g., get_holdings).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user asks for portfolio refresh/update/fetch) and when not to use (refreshing webpage, OAuth token, browser cache, non-tracker MCP server). Also provides follow-up guidance to call get_holdings after invalidation.

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