quant_portfolio_risk

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: the tool is stateless (server stores nothing), computes heat/correlation/concentration, and returns a verdict for candidate trades. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary, then details usage and returns. The Args and Returns sections are clear. It could be slightly more concise but remains informative and well-organized.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: statelessness, input requirements, output contents (heat, correlation, concentration, candidate verdict). It also references a sibling tool (quant_score_decision) for downstream use.

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?

Despite schema description coverage of 0%, the description explains the structure of positions and candidate (e.g., 'positions [{ticker, direction, entry, stop, shares}]'), adding meaning beyond what the schema provides. It also clarifies optionality and the equity parameter.

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 verb 'Assess portfolio risk' and the resource 'portfolio heat / correlation / concentration check'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like quant_analyze_setup or quant_backtest_method by focusing on risk evaluation, not analysis or backtesting.

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?

Description explains to pass open positions and optionally a candidate trade, and notes the stateless nature. It references the next step with quant_score_decision, providing context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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