jactus_simulate_portfolio

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

Discloses main behavior: simulates each contract, aggregates totals, returns per-contract summaries. With no annotations, could explicitly state it is read-only/non-destructive, but simulation context makes it clear.

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 with clear definition, then structured details. No unnecessary words. Well front-loaded.

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?

Covers inputs, aggregation method, and return type. With output schema present, doesn't need to list fields. Could mention that it returns aggregate results, which it does.

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 description explains both parameters: contracts is array of dicts (same format as simulate), and risk_factor_rate has default. Adds crucial meaning beyond schema titles.

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?

Clearly states it simulates a portfolio of contracts and returns aggregate results. Distinguishes from sibling jactus_simulate_contract by mentioning portfolio context.

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?

Implies usage for multiple contracts, references 'same format as simulate' linking to sibling tool. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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