Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Analyzera

by com.analyzera
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Summarise expected return

describe_portfolio_outlook
Read-onlyIdempotent

A strategy's long-run expected return and what builds it, as figures with no widget.

For reasoning with the number, such as comparing two strategies or checking a
savings plan's required return. ``open_dashboard(portfolio_id, tab='outlook')``
shows the same figures with their build-up and disclosures.

The figure is a long-run average from a factor model: per annum, nominal (it
includes inflation) and BEFORE FEES: no fund charge, platform, custody or advice
fee is taken off it. It is not a forecast for any one year. The
ranges returned are part of the figure. Below the horizon floor stated in the
result the model has essentially no predictive power. ``coverage`` below 100%
means part of the strategy is not in the figure.

For a strategy with a glide path, ``glide`` adds the expected return year by year
along the path, over the whole path, and the yearly rates ``project_savings_plan``
takes as ``per_annum_by_year``.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "describe_portfolio_outlook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
holdingsNoIn place of portfolio_id: asset ids and weights, measured as of the latest date and not stored. describe_holdings also takes names, ISINs and amounts.
portfolio_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that the figure is nominal (inflation included), BEFORE FEES with no fund/platform/custody/advice charge deducted, is not a one-year forecast, that ranges are integral to the figure, that below the horizon floor the model has no predictive power, and that `coverage` under 100% means partial strategy coverage. Those are exactly the caveats an agent needs to avoid misreporting the number.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded correctly: purpose and usage in the first two sentences, then caveats in descending importance. Dense but each clause is decision-relevant; the final glide-path sentence is the weakest because it describes an argument the schema does not contain.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to describe the return payload — it does (figures, ranges, coverage, per-year glide breakdown) well enough to interpret results. The remaining gap is on the input side, where `portfolio_id` is never explained and the phantom `glide` reference is unexplained.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With only two optional params and 50% schema coverage, the schema itself carries the mutual exclusivity ('In place of portfolio_id: asset ids and weights...') and the description adds nothing about either param. It also references a `glide` argument that does not exist in the input schema, which could mislead an agent into passing an unsupported key. The lack of any `portfolio_id` explanation in either place is a minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — a strategy's long-run expected return and its build-up, returned as figures rather than a widget. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling that shows the same content in a UI (`open_dashboard(..., tab='outlook')`), so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives the selecting condition up front: 'For reasoning with the number, such as comparing two strategies or checking a savings plan's required return.' It then names the alternative (`open_dashboard` outlook tab) and what it adds, plus a conditional extension ('For a strategy with a glide path, ``glide`` adds...'), covering when and when-else.

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

All Analyzera toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources