analise-carteira

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. While 'rebalanceamento' suggests mutation, the tool name 'analise' implies read-only. The description does not clarify whether this tool executes trades or just produces a plan, creating ambiguity about side effects.

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 very short and front-loaded with key terms. It conveys the purpose in one phrase, avoiding unnecessary text. A slightly more structured explanation could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 tool likely returns analysis results, but no output schema or description of return values is provided. Given the complexity of 'multifactor rebalancing', the description omits critical context about what the tool produces and how the results should be interpreted.

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 parameters are well-documented structurally. However, the description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. The mention of 'multifatorial' aligns with the 'strategy' parameter but does not elaborate on how to use it.

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 states 'Complete portfolio analysis with multifactor rebalancing', which clearly indicates the tool's function. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'get-acoes' (stock data retrieval) by focusing on analysis and rebalancing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any prerequisites or limitations. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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