get_portfolio

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

The description repeats the read-only nature ('No modifica ni liquida posiciones') which is already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds the 'modo activo' context but does not disclose any other behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication, or what happens if the mode is not active. With annotations already providing the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a safety note. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more detailed about what 'disponible' means, but it is still concise and well-structured.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough: it names the key outputs (balance, positions, PnL). There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of indicating return values, which it does. The ambiguity of 'modo activo' is minor and likely understandable in context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is acceptable without parameter details.

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 balance, positions, and available PnL for the active mode ('Saldo, posiciones y PnL disponible del modo activo'). This specifies the resource and the type of data, distinguishing it from get_metrics and get_status. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is that it does not modify or liquidate positions, implying it is safe to call without side effects, but this is not an explicit 'use this when...' statement. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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