create_shadow_portfolio

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

Annotations already convey safety (not read-only, not destructive) and idempotency. The description adds that it tracks P&L, fills, and metrics alongside the real portfolio, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or whether duplicate names are allowed.

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 concise sentences front-load the essential information: creation action and purpose, then additional tracking feature. No redundant or 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?

The description covers the core functionality and use case. However, given the absence of an output schema, it would benefit from mentioning the return value (e.g., portfolio ID). It is slightly incomplete but sufficient for a relatively simple create operation.

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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('shadow (paper) portfolio') with a specific purpose ('forward-test a strategy without risking capital'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_kronos_shadow_stats' and 'run_backtest' by emphasizing paper trading alongside real portfolio.

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 a clear use case ('to forward-test a strategy without risking capital') and implies its benefit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'run_backtest' or 'portfolio_summary'.

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