Rebalance a portfolio to target weights, enforcing authorization receipts and human-in-the-loop approval for trades over $1,000.
Synthetic portfolio rebalance (scope portfolio:rebalance). No live desk. Requires a signed authorization receipt; HITL at/above $1,000 notional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | No | ||
| notional | Yes | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| portfolio_id | Yes | ||
| target_weights | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the operation is synthetic, that there is no live desk, and that an authorization receipt is required. It does not describe what happens on success or failure, whether portfolio state is persisted, or how invalid or expired receipts are handled.
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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff or repetition. Every phrase carries meaningful operational information.
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 the nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits essential parameter meanings, expected output, error behavior, and the process for validating the authorization receipt.
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 schema has five parameters plus a nested receipt object, but the description only mentions notional and the receipt requirement generically. portfolio_id, target_weights, confidence, and the receipt's internal fields are completely undocumented, and schema coverage is 0%.
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 identifies the action as a portfolio rebalance, states the synthetic scope, and names the key resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like place_equity_order, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.
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?
It provides important preconditions: requires a signed authorization receipt and HITL above $1,000 notional, and notes that no live desk is involved. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or describe the expected workflow for obtaining the required receipt.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.