analyze_factors

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

The description discloses a behavioral trait: the tool charges $0.02 USDC. It also explains auto-fetching of live data for known tickers. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only or any side effects, though analysis tools are typically read-only. With no annotations, the description provides useful context but could be more thorough.

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 that lists key factors and the payment. It is fairly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could benefit from clearer structure, such as bullet points for factors.

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?

The tool is complex with many parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report or scores). While it mentions the factors analyzed, missing output details reduces completeness. The payment note and auto-fetching help but are not enough.

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 input schema covers 83% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions the auto-fetching behavior for holdings. Since schema coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs factor exposure analysis, listing specific factors (beta, asset-class contributions, region/sector breakdown, duration, dividend yield, currency exposure). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_correlation or analyze_risk, which focus on different aspects.

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 factor analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_risk or analyze_diversification. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisite conditions.

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