Idx Check Sector Concentration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Audit' implies a read-only review and the 50% ceiling rule is disclosed, but the description does not explicitly state that no portfolio modifications occur or what happens when the ceiling is breached.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The action, target, threshold, and timing are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema covers return values, the input schema covers all parameters, and the description supplies the decision context. The main gap is explicit side-effect disclosure, which is a minor issue for a tool named 'check'.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the 'single-sector concentration ceiling' concept but does not explain how holdings/value_idr are weighted or how candidate_sector interacts with the ceiling calculation.

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 ('audit') and names the resource ('portfolio sector weights'), along with the precise criterion ('50% single-sector concentration ceiling'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling market-data and order-related tools.

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?

It explicitly states the timing: 'before adding new stock', which tells the agent when this check is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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