allocate_cash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the no-selling constraint and mentions fees, but does not state whether this tool executes trades, returns an order plan, or how fees are actually calculated. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the key constraint. Every word adds meaning, and there is no redundant elaboration or filler.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers the high-level purpose. It omits essential details about return values, side effects, fee handling, and the rebalance band, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 only 29%, and the description only loosely maps to targets, cash_eur, and generic fees. It does not clarify current_values, rebalance_band_abs, max_fee_ratio, fixed_fee_eur, or variable_fee_pct, leaving several parameters semantically underspecified.

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 a specific action ('Allocate new cash'), a target outcome ('toward target weights'), and a key constraint ('without selling'). It effectively differentiates this from a general rebalance tool that might sell assets.

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 phrase 'new cash' and 'without selling' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the described scenario is distinct enough for an agent to choose it over rebalancing tools.

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