portfoy_risk_analizi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the calculation intent but omits any side effects, data dependencies (e.g., historical prices), or assumptions about input formats beyond the schema. Since it's a calculation, it likely is safe, but the description doesn't confirm that.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the output metrics directly. No filler or redundant text; it earns its place efficiently.

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 tool has an output schema and complete parameter documentation, but the description lacks context about the data source (e.g., whether it fetches market data or uses provided time series) and assumptions like the lookback period. These are important for a risk-analysis tool and are not addressed, creating a moderate completeness gap.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters fully (risk-free rate and asset:weight CSV), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail about how these parameters influence the computed metrics. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'hesapla' (calculate) and names precise metrics (Sharpe, Sortino, Max Drawdown, HHI). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like markowitz_portfoy_optimizasyonu, which focuses on optimization. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when these risk metrics are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like stres_testi_simulasyonu or monte_carlo_simulasyonu. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so the guidance is limited to inference.

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