rebalance_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains optimization constraints (no new tickers, long-only, no leverage), how cash is preserved, what asset types are skipped, and that the output is a model output rather than a direct recommendation. This goes well beyond a basic tool description.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then provides method, constraints, and output type in a compact four-sentence format. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, method choices, universe constraints, asset exclusions, cash handling, and output nature. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists valid method values (min_variance, risk_parity, equal_weight) and hints at lookback through 'trailing daily returns,' but it does not explain the account or lookback_days parameters directly. Partial compensation only.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Suggest target weights for an account's current long spot holdings,' clearly identifying the resource (target weights) and scope (long spot holdings). This distinguishes it from siblings like portfolio_backtest or risk_get, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context: it optimizes over the account's existing eligible symbol universe only, with constraints like long-only, no leverage, and skipping options/futures/shorts. It also cautions that the output is a model output, not a recommendation to act on directly. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or state when-not-to-use situations.

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