Skip to main content
Glama

crashtestyourstrategy

by io.github.fnobbe

Long-horizon wealth-path stress (savings / withdrawal plans)

long_horizon_stress
Read-onlyIdempotent

Distribution of multi-year wealth paths for a savings plan (monthly_contribution) or a withdrawal plan (monthly_withdrawal, inflation-indexed by default) on a portfolio from the substrate universe. Multi-year paths chain ~2y model blocks (block-bootstrap, disclosed); long-run drift is RE-ANCHORED to stated capital-market assumptions (overridable via long_run_drift; the substrate's raw stress drift would compound a structural bear universe — both are echoed in the output) while the model's path shape (vol, clustering, correlations, hedge-breaks) is kept. Costs are ON by default. Returns terminal-wealth quantiles (nominal + real), ruin/shortfall probabilities, a sequence-of-returns diagnosis (same plan, bad vs good first two years), and a drift-sensitivity block (assumptions − 2pp). Amounts in the caller's currency unit. Descriptive, not advisory — no rate, allocation, or product is recommended.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
holdingsYesPortfolio legs: list of {asset, weight} objects, e.g. [{'asset': 'SPY', 'weight': 0.6}, {'asset': 'TLT', 'weight': 0.4}]. Weights are normalised to sum to 1; assets must be in the substrate universe.
rebalanceNoRebalancing frequency: 'daily' | 'monthly' | 'quarterly'.monthly
horizon_yearsYesPlan horizon in years (multi-year paths are chained from ~2-year model blocks).
target_amountNoOptional wealth target; the output reports the probability of reaching it.
long_run_driftNoOverride the re-anchored long-run drift per asset: {ASSET: annual drift fraction}; omit for the stated capital-market assumptions.
annual_inflationNoAnnual inflation assumption for indexing and real-value reporting (fraction, default 0.02).
initial_investmentNoStarting capital (account currency).
monthly_withdrawalNoMonthly withdrawal (withdrawal-plan mode); inflation-indexed when withdrawal_inflation_indexed is true.
monthly_contributionNoFixed monthly savings contribution (savings-plan mode).
withdrawal_inflation_indexedNoIndex the monthly withdrawal to inflation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: long-run drift is re-anchored to stated assumptions, costs are ON by default, the model preserves path shape from the substrate while overriding drift, and the tool is explicitly non-advisory. It also discloses the block-bootstrap chaining method and that both the raw stress drift and re-anchored drift are echoed in output — valuable context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, proceeds to methodological details (block chaining, drift re-anchoring), then outputs, and ends with a caveat. Every sentence conveys necessary information for a complex tool, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized given the tool's sophistication.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all critical context: input modes (savings/withdrawal), methodology (chained blocks, drift re-anchoring), default behaviors (costs on, inflation indexing), output types, and usage limits (descriptive, not advisory). It leaves no major gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying how monthly_contribution and monthly_withdrawal define mutually exclusive plan modes, notes that monthly_withdrawal is inflation-indexed by default (reinforcing schema), and explains that long_run_drift overrides the re-anchored drift. It also mentions costs being ON, which relates to implicit parameters not in the schema, enriching parameter understanding.

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 specifies the tool's function: it computes distributions of multi-year wealth paths for savings or withdrawal plans, and explicitly lists the outputs (quantiles, ruin probabilities, sequence-of-returns diagnosis, drift-sensitivity). It distinguishes itself from generic stress tests by focusing on long-horizon savings/withdrawal scenarios, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: for evaluating multi-year savings or withdrawal plans, particularly with inflation-indexed withdrawals and re-anchored drift. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like portfolio_stress_test, but the context ('savings plan', 'withdrawal plan') provides clear situational guidance. No exclusions are stated, but the intent is clear.

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

All crashtestyourstrategy toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources/actions (regime introspection vs. portfolio stress vs. thesis management), but a few names like run_stress_test vs. portfolio_stress_test could cause confusion. Descriptions help clarify boundaries, but there is enough overlap to mark one point off.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case but mix verb_noun (get_dossier, run_stress_test) with noun phrases (factor_decomposition, market_regime_map). The verb style is inconsistent (get/list/run/describe/submit/challenge), though the pattern is readable. This falls between predictable and chaotic.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the domain is broad (regime analysis, portfolio stress testing, strategy evaluation, feedback). Most tools are distinct and necessary; only a couple could be merged without loss of functionality.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: discovering theses, stress-testing portfolios, analyzing regimes, evaluating strategy robustness, and collecting feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no custom strategy builder, challenge_strategy only supports buy-and-hold), but these are explicitly noted as future work.

Resources