portfolio_correlation_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'auto-detects your portfolio positions' (a key behavior) but does not disclose auth needs, side effects, or output format. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage clarification. No unnecessary 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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description needs only to cover basic behavior. It does so adequately for a simple tool, though could elaborate on the nature of the correlation analysis (e.g., pairwise matrix).

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 a single parameter 'days' fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 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 verb 'analyze correlation' and resource 'all portfolio holdings'. It further distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing auto-detection and no need to specify tickers, setting it apart from tools like portfolio_compare_tickers or portfolio_risk_adjusted_analysis.

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 correlation analysis of the entire portfolio is desired. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for subset analysis) or mention alternatives, but given the simplicity, the implied guidance is clear.

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