Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wealthapi-mcp

wealthapi-mcp

Official
by wealthAPI-eu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_portfolio_allocation

Break down portfolio market value by region, industry, or asset type to answer diversification and exposure questions.

Instructions

Break down the portfolio's market value by region, industry sector, or asset type. Use this for 'how diversified am I?' and 'what's my US exposure?'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dimension": "<dimension>"
    },
    "name": "get_portfolio_allocation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dimensionYesWhat to group by
accountIdsNoDepot ID(s) to include, defaults to all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only aggregation but does not explicitly state read-only status, return format, or any limitations (e.g., whether cash is included, how accounts are aggregated). The description lacks behavioral depth beyond its purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences. The first states the action and scope; the second provides practical use cases. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with two well-described parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and use cases, and the schema covers parameters. It could benefit from a hint about response format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions, including the dimension enum and accountIds default behavior. The description does not add additional parameter details but the schema already provides full coverage, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool breaks down portfolio market value by region, industry, or asset type. It includes example use cases that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_portfolio_valuation or get_risk_metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context with example questions ('how diversified am I?', 'what's my US exposure?'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools