analyze_stress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that real portfolio volatility data is used, scenarios are sector-aware, and payment is required. It does not cover error handling, data freshness, or authentication, but for a stress test tool, the behavioral context is robust.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core function. Every sentence adds information (scenarios, data source, output, payment) without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects), the description explains the scenarios and output format adequately. It could elaborate on the return structure (e.g., data types) since no output schema is provided, but it gives sufficient context for an agent.

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 value by listing the 10 scenarios and noting that known tickers auto-fetch data, which aids parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 performs stress testing across 10 named macro scenarios with specific impacts, and specifies the output (P&L per scenario with worst/best asset). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_risk (general risk) or analyze_regime (market regime detection).

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 context on when to use (portfolio stress testing) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. The detailed scenario list and output description imply its purpose, yet exclusion criteria are absent.

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