analyze_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It transparently lists the computed metrics and mentions the use of 'risk_free_annual' parameter. However, it omits details like data source reliance (daily price history) or any limitations, which would improve transparency.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear lead sentence and a bullet list of computed metrics. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys the key 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?

The description sufficiently explains inputs and computations. Since an output schema exists, the return values are covered. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., data availability for the date range) or any edge cases. Still, it is complete for a typical analysis 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the tool computes using the parameters (e.g., Sharpe ratio uses risk_free_annual) and providing context for defaults. It also lists the output metrics, which aids understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool analyzes risk/return statistics for TEFAS funds, listing specific metrics computed (e.g., cumulative return, Sharpe ratio). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_funds or get_historical_returns.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for computing performance stats but lacks guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer siblings like compare_funds. The context of sibling tools is present but not leveraged.

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