portfolio_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the metric set but omits behavior an agent needs: that it pulls external market data, how much history is required, what happens with missing tickers, and how weights are normalized. Useful but not rich.

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 compact sentences with the metric list front-loaded and a minimal inline example for the required parameter. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the metric list plus holdings example cover the core. Still missing for a two-parameter analytics tool: the meaning/units of lookback_days, weight normalization rules, and failure behavior for tickers without sufficient history.

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 0%, and the items schema is a bare object with additionalProperties, so the inline example [{ticker, weight}] genuinely rescues the required `holdings` parameter. However, `lookback_days` is never mentioned in the description and has no schema text, leaving its effect on annualization and beta unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb (计算) and enumerates the exact metrics produced: annualized volatility, max drawdown, HHI concentration, and beta vs QQQ. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are all raw data-fetch or order-drafting tools rather than analytics.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for portfolio-level risk analytics, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of alternatives, and no preconditions (e.g. whether historical price data must exist for every ticker).

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