rebalance_portfolio

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects, required permissions). It only provides input examples, leaving the agent unaware of important safety or authorization details.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally viable. It provides the core purpose and example inputs but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or edge cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but completeness is still modest.

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 description adds significant meaning to parameters by showing concrete example formats for target_allocation_json and current_values_json (e.g., '{"equity": 60, "debt": 30, "gold": 10}'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it does not explain the optional additional_investment parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Calculate trades needed to rebalance portfolio to target allocation.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the example distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_asset_allocation, which gives allocations but does not calculate trades.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs. alternatives like suggest_asset_allocation or calculate_portfolio_return, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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