fahali_analyze_custom_portfolio

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains expected behavior: accepts inline positions or symbols, returns risk breakdown (VaR95, drawdown, per-position scores, recommendations, contagion). No side effects mentioned but likely none.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details. No redundant information. Perfectly structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It covers inputs, outputs, use cases. For a tool with 2 parameters and no nested objects, it is complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats what's in the schema but adds no new meaning beyond that. Baseline 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 verb 'Analyze risk' and the resource 'custom portfolio that you provide inline'. It distinguishes itself from get_portfolio_risk by noting no connected accounts needed. The purpose is 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?

Explicitly states the tool is 'Useful for what-if analysis or evaluating a portfolio before you connect accounts.' It contrasts with get_portfolio_risk which requires accounts, but does not list other alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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