portfolio.optimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'analyzes' and 'generates recommendations', implying it is read-only (no modifications). However, it does not explicitly state that it does not alter positions or the portfolio, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple schema (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality and output. It lists what it returns but could elaborate on the meaning of 'cut/hold/take-profit actions' for full clarity.

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?

The single parameter 'strategy' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by linking the strategy to the optimization but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 it analyzes open positions and generates optimization recommendations, specifying the output types (SL/TP suggestions, warnings, actions). It distinguishes from siblings like portfolio.risk by focusing on optimization. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all related tools.

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 use when you have open positions and need optimization, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools like portfolio.risk or positions.list for comparison.

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