portfolio_risk-parity-weights

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description misleadingly says 'Provide a covariance matrix' whereas the input schema requires separate volatilities and correlation matrix, causing confusion about the actual input format.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Minor redundancy exists ('Equal risk contribution portfolio weights' vs. 'Use when computing...'), but it remains efficient.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on how optional parameters like 'risk_budget' are used, error conditions, or explicit mention of return values beyond weights and risk contributions.

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 100% for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning; the 'covariance matrix' mention contradicts the schema, but the schema descriptions themselves are adequate.

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 computes equal risk contribution (risk parity) portfolio weights, using specific verb 'compute' and resource 'risk parity weights'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'portfolio_optimize' which handle other optimization methods.

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 mentions 'Use when computing equal risk contribution (risk parity) portfolio weights', providing clear context but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives such as 'portfolio_optimize'.

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