Break down portfolio exposure by GICS sector, market cap, and asset class. Returns concentration metrics including the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| positions | Yes | Array of portfolio positions to analyze. Returns GICS sector weights, market cap breakdown, and concentration metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is a read-only computation returning sector weights and concentration metrics, but lacks details on error handling, invalid inputs, or output structure.
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?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence is necessary and informative without extraneous content.
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?
With 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the main purpose and one output metric (HHI) but lacks details on the complete return structure or edge cases.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool computes exposure from positions but does not provide additional parameter syntax or format details beyond 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 clearly states it breaks down portfolio exposure by GICS sector, market cap, and asset class, and returns concentration metrics like HHI. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_risk' or 'performance_attribution'.
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 implies usage for sector exposure analysis but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose (e.g., risk metrics, Greeks, portfolio optimization, simulation), with no overlap or ambiguity. The descriptions clearly separate core risk analysis from advanced features.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_risk, calculate_greeks), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 10 tools, the server covers a comprehensive range of quantitative risk analytics without being bloated. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose within risk management.
The tool set covers essential risk analysis (VaR, Greeks, optimization, stress tests, attribution) but is missing common features like scenario analysis beyond historical crises or backtesting. Still, it is well above average.