analyze_rebalance

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses auto-enrichment of tickers and a payment of $0.02 USDC, but does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or mention data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—three sentences capturing purpose, methods, output, and special features. No redundant or unnecessary information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (nested objects, multiple optional parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the essential output fields (target weight, current weight, action, delta) and the auto-enrichment feature. It could mention how market indicators affect results, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds context about live data and payment but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 provides portfolio rebalancing recommendations using live market data, lists four distinct methods, and describes the output structure. This is highly specific and easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_correlation or analyze_risk.

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 specifies four rebalancing methods and notes that known crypto tickers are auto-enriched, giving context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling names make the choice clear. Lacks explicit exclusions.

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