Run Scenario Analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'runs' an analysis, suggesting a computation with no side effects, but it does not disclose whether data is modified, whether specific inputs are required, or any constraints. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other behavioral traits remain opaque.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns its place by adding the portfolio PnL and price/volatility scope beyond the tool name. It is arguably too sparse for the nested parameter complexity, but as a concise statement it is well-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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description lacks essential context for correct invocation: no parameter guidance, no usage boundaries, and no behavioral caveats. Given the nested required objects and zero schema description coverage, an agent would need to infer too much about how to construct scenarios and portfolio_data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It indirectly alludes to 'scenarios' via price/volatility moves and to 'portfolio' via portfolio PnL, but it does not explain the nested structure, the required 'params' wrapper, or the expected shape of portfolio_data and scenarios. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid inputs.

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 names a specific operation ('Run scenario analysis') and a concrete resource/target ('portfolio PnL across price and volatility moves'), which distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools. It is clear but somewhat generic, as it does not specify what a 'scenario' consists of or what the analysis output encompasses.

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 implies when to use the tool: when testing portfolio PnL under price and volatility moves. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares with sibling tools such as analyze_portfolio_greeks or analyze_portfolio_strategies, so usage context is only implied.

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