get_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Show' and states the scope as 'all current positions,' adding context that the agent receives the full portfolio without filters. However, it does not disclose potential latency, data freshness, or whether any side effects occur (though 'show' strongly implies no mutation).

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the main action ('Show all current positions') and then adds the key detail ('with unrealized P&L and current prices'). No wasted words or 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema provides return structure. The description covers the essential scope ('all current positions') and the key data fields. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not mention data freshness or any filtering limitations beyond 'all'.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is trivial and the description correctly does not attempt to describe parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to add beyond what is already obvious from the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all current positions' while adding distinguishing details ('unrealized P&L and current prices'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_balance (cash) and get_open_orders (orders), and get_pnl_summary (P&L summary without full 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites or scenarios where other tools like get_pnl_summary would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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