stress_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the stress methods but fails to disclose side effects, data requirements, or whether the tool is read-only. For a risk calculation, more transparency is needed.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded, but omits important details like parameter explanations and output format. It is not wasteful, but its brevity compromises completeness.

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 the tool has 4 parameters with no output schema and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain how parameters relate, what the output represents, or prerequisites like historical data format.

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%. The description only mentions 'horizon' with backticks, leaving 'top', 'weights', and 'asset_returns' unexplained. This adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema's type information.

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 'stresses the portfolio' using two specific methods: preset crisis shocks (e.g., GFC, pandemic) and historical worst windows, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compute_var_es or backtest_var.

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 usage for stress testing but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. The two methods are described, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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