portfolio_risk

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 clearly indicates a read-only summarization action rather than a mutation, but it does not disclose details such as required file format, error behavior, or whether the export must be parsed first. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with only two parameters and no nested structure.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, so the description must provide a fuller picture on its own. It does not explain what the summarized output looks like, how the path should be supplied, what base_currency affects, or how this tool relates to parse_portfolio_export. This leaves notable gaps for an agent trying to call it 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 coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain either parameter. 'From a local export' gives a slight hint that 'path' points to an export file, but 'base_currency' is entirely unaddressed and the description adds no meaningful semantic detail 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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and a concrete resource ('weights, concentration and leveraged exposure') from a 'local export'. This is distinct enough to separate it from live data tools like portfolio_exposure, though it does not explicitly mention siblings.

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 'from a local export' implies this tool is for offline/exported data rather than live portfolio queries, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like portfolio_exposure or parse_portfolio_export, nor does it mention any prerequisites.

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