calculate_portfolio_allocation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It states 'Returns: {allocation_pct, sum_pct}' but the tool name and parameters imply it calculates dollar amounts from percentages. This inconsistency and lack of details about side effects, permissions, or data mutation leaves major gaps.

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. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides return structure and a sibling reference. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the return structure could be more fully specified.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema exists, the description is too brief. It does not mention that percentages should sum to 100%, nor provide validation details or usage examples. The reference to 'list_bundles' is helpful but does not compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information.

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%, with good parameter descriptions for total_value, btc_pct, eth_pct, alts_pct, stablecoins_pct. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'by percentage' and mentions return structure. There is a slight mismatch: the description says 'amounts' while parameters are percentages.

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 by percentage for major crypto asset classes, and references a sibling tool for related calculators. It distinguishes itself from the many 'calculate_*' siblings by specifying crypto assets, but could be more precise about returning dollar amounts versus percentages.

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 only provides a reference to 'list_bundles' for related calculators. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. This is inadequate for helping the agent decide context of use.

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