portfolio_daily_briefing

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states mode='generate' creates a new briefing via LLM, which is a write operation. This is a direct contradiction. The description does add useful context about cost and latency, but the contradiction severely undermines transparency. Annotation Contradiction flagged.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, timing, integration details, and operational notes (cost, speed). It contains no filler, though a structured format (e.g., bullet points or separate sections) could improve readability for complex information.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the output (LLM summary + actionable steps) and inputs (type, mode with behavioral nuances). It covers content elements (holdings, P&L, exposures, macro) but could specify output format or additional fields (e.g., specific metrics included).

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 both parameters with enums and brief descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds significant meaning: it explains the real-world implications of type (morning watchlist vs. evening recap) and mode (cost/time trade-offs), going beyond the schema's basic enum labels.

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 a daily portfolio briefing with two variants (morning/evening), integrating holdings, P&L, exposures, and macro/institutional flow, producing an LLM summary with actionable steps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_portfolio or get_portfolio_performance by offering a synthesized, contextual summary rather than raw data.

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 explains when to use each briefing type (pre-market vs. post-market) and details the mode parameter: get for free immediate retrieval, generate for costly on-demand generation. It implies judicious use of generate due to cost and time, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative portfolio tools or state when not to use this tool.

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