calculate_portfolio_allocation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a return type, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or purely computational. Given the family of calculator tools, this is a notable gap.

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 with two sentences: one for purpose and returns, one for related tools. No redundancy. Could be slightly more precise about return type details, but overall efficient.

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's nature (calculation) and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate but lacks an explicit statement that percentages should sum to 100. The return mention is helpful. Output schema exists but is not detailed in input. Scores average.

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 input schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds value by naming the return structure but does not provide additional semantics beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates portfolio allocation amounts for major crypto asset classes and mentions the return structure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling calculators like calculate_crypto_profit_loss, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 minimal usage guidance, only referencing list_bundles for related calculators. It does not state when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving an agent to infer usage from context.

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