portfolio_portfolio_correlation_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It includes a disclaimer about educational purposes and past correlations, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any authentication/rate limit implications. The behavioral impact is unclear.

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 well-structured with bullet points and a separate 'Portfolio Integration' section. It is concise but includes a necessary disclaimer. Some sentences could be trimmed, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 high schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and the description's explanation of the output concept (correlation matrix) and default behavior, the description is fairly complete. It does not cover edge cases like empty portfolios or invalid tickers, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of the 'tickers' parameter (auto-analyzes portfolio holdings) and the 'days' parameter (default 252 for 1 year). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Analyze correlation between multiple securities.' It elaborates on what the tool does (calculates correlation matrix, identifies correlations) and distinguishes from sibling tools like portfolio_risk_adjusted_analysis by focusing on correlation analysis and portfolio integration.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (identify diversification issues, natural hedges) and includes the important note that if no tickers are provided, it automatically uses portfolio holdings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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