analyze_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists the analysis metrics but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any potential side effects. The agent must infer safety from the word 'analyze'.

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 a single sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, 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 description lacks critical context for correct invocation: it does not explain what 'positions' should contain, how the metrics are computed, or how this tool differs from similar analysis tools like analyze_company. The presence of an output schema helps, but the input side remains under-specified.

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?

The schema has a single 'positions' parameter with no description and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by implying the positions must contain data to compute the listed metrics, but it does not specify required fields or data structure, leaving the agent to guess what the array items should look like.

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 portfolio positions, listing specific metrics (weights, market value, unrealized return, concentration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_company or get_dashboard_data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_cagr or get_financial_ratios. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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