stres_testi_simulasyonu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'simulate' without stating whether the operation is read-only, deterministic, how the simulation works, or whether external data is fetched. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 efficiently states the tool's purpose. No wasted words.

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 description names the specific scenarios, which is useful, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, given the presence of overlapping sibling tools, it could be more complete by clarifying the simulation methodology or that it is specifically a stress test for risk assessment. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly described (scenario name and asset:weight pairs). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 simulates a portfolio under four specific crisis scenarios (BIST Crash, Currency Shock, Rate Hike, Stagflation). This specific verb+resource+scenario list distinguishes it from sibling tools like monte_carlo_simulasyonu and markowitz_portfoy_optimizasyonu, which are more general simulation/optimization tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The scenario list implies it is for stress testing under predefined crises, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to the Monte Carlo simulation or Markowitz optimization tools.

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