optimize_portfolio

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it adds substantive caveats: results are WAIT analysis-only, exact pool identity, wallet eligibility, policy, costs and stay-put comparison remain required, and campaign confirmation does not establish safety. This is consistent with readOnlyHint and materially helps the agent understand the tool's limits.

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 core description is short and includes important caveats, but it is front-loaded with bracketed API/tier metadata that is not directly useful for deciding how to invoke the tool. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by disclosing analysis-only limitations.

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 four parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description omits parameter semantics and does not describe the shape of the returned research candidates. It covers safety caveats but is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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% for all four parameters, yet the description provides no explanation of currentProtocols, riskPreference, budget, or chains. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive metadata, leaving parameter meaning to be inferred only from names and enums.

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 has a verb and resource ('Get unranked catalog research candidates'), but the resource is jargon and the relationship to the tool name optimize_portfolio is unclear. It does not clearly distinguish this research-candidate tool from siblings like compare_yields or simulate_yield_strategy.

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 implies the tool is for analysis-only research and warns that further checks are required, which gives some usage context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance relative to many sibling tools.

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