stress_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions tier limitations but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, or output format. The schema constraints (e.g., minItems, maxItems) are not reiterated in the description, though they are covered in the schema.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and tier distinction. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, earning its place.

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?

Given that the tool has three parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs but omits details about return values, idempotency, or error handling. For a stress-testing tool, additional context on how results are returned would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds valuable context beyond the schema, particularly regarding tier-based limits (e.g., 'Free tier: max 20 positions and historical scenarios only'). This enhances understanding of parameter constraints.

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's purpose: stress testing a portfolio against historical crisis scenarios or custom shocks. It uses specific verbs ('stress test') and resources ('portfolio'), and the mention of specific crisis names distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_risk' or 'monte_carlo_simulation'.

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 provides usage context by differentiating between free and paid tiers ('or custom shocks (paid tier)'), hinting at when to use the full feature set. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings or state when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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