analyze_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the computed output set (valuation, allocation, return, volatility, Sharpe, daily change), which signals a read-only analytical operation. It says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, whether an empty or all-invalid position list errors out, or any cost to calling it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the analytical scope and followed by the input-domain note; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the second sentence would earn more if it stated a constraint rather than an input capability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned metrics, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. With 100% schema coverage on both parameters and only two parameters, little else is required; a note on data granularity or error behavior would complete it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents symbol formats (.IS suffix, crypto pairs), quantity, optional cost, and the default 30% risk-free rate. The description's only added parameter meaning is that indices and ETFs are valid in addition to stocks and crypto, a marginal increment over the schema's own examples.

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?

States a specific verb ('analiz eder') and resource ('portföy'), then enumerates the exact outputs computed: value, sector/currency breakdown, return, volatility, Sharpe ratio and daily change. An agent immediately knows what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling backtest_portfolio, which an agent could easily confuse with this analysis tool.

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 second sentence tells the agent what asset classes can be supplied as positions, which is input guidance rather than usage timing. There is no statement of when to choose this tool over backtest_portfolio (the closest sibling) or over the single-asset price tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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