optimize_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it uses historical daily returns, calculates optimal weights, and outputs specific metrics. This goes beyond the annotations.

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, information-dense sentence covering method, input, and output. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly more structure (separating input/output) could improve readability.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description adds necessary method and output details. It lists the four key output fields, compensating for the lack of output schema. Complete for a calculation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described (codes, market, riskFreeRate). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema but does not need to due to high coverage.

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 portfolio optimization using the Markowitz maximum Sharpe ratio method. It specifies the input (multiple stocks) and output (recommended weights, expected return, volatility, Sharpe ratio), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_portfolio or calculate_portfolio_var.

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 optimization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many portfolio-related siblings, explicit guidance on when to choose optimization would improve clarity.

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