fahali_get_portfolio_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool synthesizes data from three engines and returns four specific metrics. It implies a read-only operation without side effects, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or state any rate limits or other behavioral details.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first states the tool's action and summary of metrics; second adds data sources and access requirements. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the returned metrics, their derivation, and data sources. It could mention whether the metrics are real-time or snapshot, but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100% by emptiness). The description adds value by explaining the returned metrics and their derivation, which is the only needed context since there are no parameters to describe.

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 aggregates portfolio risk metrics and lists the specific metrics (sentiment momentum, cascade risk, liquidity stress, signal stress). This differentiates it from siblings like fahali_get_portfolio_risk which may focus on individual risk factors, though the distinction is not explicit.

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 notes the data is public and no tier required, which helps with access decisions. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fahali_get_portfolio_risk or other risk-related tools, nor when not to use it.

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