run_scenario_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core purpose, omitting any information about side effects, computational cost, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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's complexity (nested objects, output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (though output schema exists), constraints on scenario definitions, or how to interpret results. Among many sibling tools, more context would help the agent select and use it correctly.

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?

Although the input schema already provides descriptions for 'portfolio_data' and 'scenarios', the tool description adds minimal value beyond those descriptions. It mentions 'price and volatility moves' which aligns with the scenario parameter, but does not elaborate on the structure or expected format of the 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 clearly states the tool runs scenario analysis for portfolio PnL across price and volatility moves, using a specific verb ('Run scenario analysis') and resource ('portfolio PnL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_portfolio_strategies' and 'get_vol_surface_metrics' which focus on different analyses.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. For a tool that appears to compute hypothetical PnL, this omission could lead to misuse without understanding context.

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