Skip to main content
Glama

crashtestyourstrategy

by io.github.fnobbe

Portfolio compare (paired Revise-step comparison)

portfolio_compare
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two portfolios (A = reference, B = candidate revision) on IDENTICAL simulated substrate paths — a paired design, so every delta is attributable to the weights, not seed noise. Returns drawdown-distribution deltas (median/worst/quantiles), probability-weighted scenario summaries, per-scenario outcome deltas, risk-concentration shift (Euler decomposition), and which diversification failures the candidate introduces or resolves. revision_required flags a candidate that deepens the worst-path drawdown or introduces a new diversification failure — the case where a revision made robustness worse. Provide holdings_a / holdings_b as lists of {asset, weight}. Descriptive, not advisory; neither portfolio is recommended or ranked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
holdings_aYesReference portfolio A. Portfolio 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.
holdings_bYesCandidate revision B, same shape — evaluated on paths identical to A's, so every delta is attributable to the weights.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description adds rich behavioral context: it returns specific delta metrics (drawdown, scenarios, Euler decomposition, diversification failures), explains the paired design eliminates seed noise, and defines the revision_required flag. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful information about outputs or interpretation, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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, the description fully enumerates return values (drawdown deltas, scenario summaries, risk-concentration shift, diversification failures, revision_required semantics). With annotations and an output schema present, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions, examples, and normalization notes for both holdings_a and holdings_b. The description's brief mention 'Provide holdings_a / holdings_b as lists of {asset, weight}' adds no new information, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 compares two portfolios (A = reference, B = candidate revision) using identical simulated substrate paths. The verb 'Compare' and resource 'two portfolios' are specific, and the paired-design emphasis distinguishes it from sibling tools like portfolio_stress_test.

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: when comparing a reference to a candidate revision in a paired setup. It also notes 'Descriptive, not advisory' to clarify non-recommendation. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name specific sibling tools, stopping short of full guidance.

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